This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kkj11210 (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 23 August 2014 (→Talk: 19 Kids and Counting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:58, 23 August 2014 by Kkj11210 (talk | contribs) (→Talk: 19 Kids and Counting)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
 |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
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.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | In Progress | Abo Yemen (t) | 22 days, 8 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 12 hours | Manuductive (t) | 20 hours |
| Urartu | In Progress | Bogazicili (t) | 7 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 7 hours | Skeptical1800 (t) | 6 hours |
| Wesean Student Federation | On hold | EmeraldRange (t) | 5 days, 13 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 5 days, 13 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 5 days, 13 hours |
| Jehovah's Witnesses | In Progress | Clovermoss (t) | 4 days, 9 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 3 days, 16 hours | Jeffro77 (t) | 3 days, 3 hours |
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.
Current disputes
Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
 | Stale - I'm not familiar with this case so if another editor cannot point you into the right direction please take a look at these other noticeboards. If everything there is unsuitable for your needs please say something on the talk page of this noticeboard and someone will point you to the right direction. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by SilentDan297 on 13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview numerous disagreements regarding the articles format on the members and discography section. These arguments have spread across multiple sections and a consensus is yet to be made due to this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking for third opinions, citing to FA standard articles and citing to guidelines and templates. How do you think we can help? By explaining to both users how the article should follow and the importance of guidelines and template articles. Summary of dispute by Moscow ConnectionSilentDan297 simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT the article and this request is a WP:DEADHORSE. I'm already bored and annoyed to death. I just wish I wasn't away on June 19 when SilentDan297 changed the whole article. On that day he was reverted by an IP and started edit warring. On that day, he violated 3RR by reverting five times in 42 minutes (1, 2, 3, 4 , 5) and he won and he WP:OWNed the article () until July 16 when I returned and reverted some of his changes. Since then, the user just can't stop creating walls of text on the talk page. He has already started several discussions about this matter.
Talk:Babymetal#Disruptive edits by SilentDan297 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Infobox@SilentDan297 and Moscow Connection: Lets address this first. The main issue here appears to be the number of genres to include, and the number that appear in the infobox. The main issue here is the inclusion of "Kawaii metal"; Do any reliable independent sources (ideally critics) use this genre to descride the band's music? --Mdann52talk to me! 08:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice the section was titled "Infobox". In the infobox, the only issue that's left is how to list the record labels. It's being discussed here: I hope the whole discussion is almost over. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Bob Avakian
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Xcuref1endx on 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Xcuref1endx (talk · contribs)
- EnRealidad (talk · contribs)
- Tamfang (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There are issues of objectivity in this article. A single editor essentially has turned the entire article into his own pet project. Any edits done by other editors tend to be undone. The issue is in regards to the articles neutral point of view, appropriate usage of external links, and appropriate links for critical opinions of the subject.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
There has been a lengthy discussion in the Talk section about what is appropriate and inappropriate. But in the end, no matter what changes have been made by other editors, EnRealidad reverts it back to his own original take on the article.
How do you think we can help?
We need help determining what is appropriate for a neutral or objective point of view in the case of this controversial biography of a living person.
Summary of dispute by EnRealidad
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Although xcuref1endx says the dispute is over a neutral or objective point of view of the contents of this Wiki page, the source of the dispute appears to be xcuref1endx's personal dislike for and dismissal of Avakian (the subject of the biography). He/she has consistently edited the site for more than three years in a way to promote his/her own opinion of Avakian. I have had to consistently revert or re-edit xfend1cure's changes because they distort Avakian's actual views and instead insert xfend1cure's views of the matter in question.
For example, look at the discussion on the Talk page under headings "Correcting prior edits to accurately reflect views of subject" (begun 11-29-11) through "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (4-19-12). I carefully documented each revision or re-edit to explain why I felt xcure1fendx's changes had distorted Avakian's views in favor of his/her own, clarifying what Avakian has actually said or written. One way xcuref1endx's edits changed the content and meaning was to remove citations or links to Avakian's works documenting his views, making it impossible for a reader to recognize the distortions.
The same is true of the ongoing dispute over the "critical opinions" section of the page. The "Bob Avakian" page has been up for a number of years. In 2009, after many editors complained about the quality of the entry, I put up a complete rewrite. As I explained at the time, this was based on lengthy study of Avakian and of the Revolutionary Communist Party, the organization he leads. I kept the "critical opinions" subsection that had previously existed because I felt at least the main entries there contained material that clarified the differences between Avakian's views and those of other political forces.
Xcuref1endx's recent additions to "critical opinions", however, can I think be fairly characterized as opportunities for the pieces' respective authors to pour out their personal dislike for Avakian without any attempt to actually engage the content of his ideas and positions. That frankly doesn't add anything relevant, and I think cuts against the purpose of an objective Wiki article.
Finally, I'd suggest that the history of xcuref1endx's edits reveals that they come from his/her own personal dislike for Avakian. Xcuref1endx only edits to the Wiki site for over three years have been to the Avakian page except a couple to one other site. Many of the edits and deletions have been explained by with comments like "Avakians work is largely only read by his followers" or "He's a minor douche who happens to be the center of a cult of personality". Even if true (which I'd argue is quite far from the reality of the situation), (a) I find it ironic that xcuref1endx has contributed nothing to Wiki for three years except over 100 edits to the article (and many more to the Talk page) and (b) I do not see how xcuref1endx's personal disagreements with Avakian's philosophical or political views has any place in the content of a Wiki page. The page is about Avakian, not xcuref1endx.
I'd be happy to speak further to specific differences if the Wiki senior editors would like. EnRealidad (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by xcuref1endx
Enrealidad summary basically describes the main theme of issues surrounding Avakian's biography. However, he largely ignores the arguments established in the 'talk' section, not just by me, but by others, about the issue of neutrality and non-point of view, and immediately goes straight to questioning the edits that I made not by the content itself, but by motives he suspects me of harboring. "The minor douche" comment was not made by me, so I do not know why he attributes that to me, however, I have stated that Avakian's work is largely read only by his followers, but this was stated in the talk section, not in the actual article. This was stated because precisely of the style that EnRealidad insists upon for the main article. It has been noted over and over in the Talk section how the article does read like a RCP propaganda piece, often suggesting that Avakian's work is widely contended and engaged with by those outside of RCP circles. There is no proof of this, his work is not submitted to peer review, nor can one find extensive articles or editorials that engage with Avakian's work. Almost every note or citation in the article is from Avakian himself or the RCP, which are primary sources. Peppered throughout the article are external links to the RCP magazine, sometimes appearing to have no other purpose other than using the Avakian[REDACTED] page as an advertising tool for Avakian and the RCP rather than providing an objective perspective of Avakian. The few articles that do, usually from defunct or eccentric radical periodicals that do critically examine Avakian are immediately under suspicion by Enrealided, hence the controversy that brought us here now.
It seems that the controversy surrounding the neutrality of the argument stems between two different ideas of what 'neutrality' actually means. Enrealidad is approaching this term as understanding Avakian through Avakian's own words. That to objectively understand Avakian we need to look at what Avakian has presented to us in his writing or speeches. However, my perspective, I feel evidenced through my edits, is that using Avakian to describe Avakian does not comport with encyclopedia standards, and that external opinions matter in understanding the objective influences, perspectives, and ideas of a living individual.
Oddly, about the history of my edits that enrealidad brought up... I am not certain as to what that says about the content of my edits, because equally, the history of enrealidad's edits are exactly the same for the past x amount of years. It appears that his history suggests that he is taking careful effort to sustain a certain image of the RCP in[REDACTED] articles. If my intentions are to be considered suspicious, then there should be no reason as to why enrealidad should not be subjected to the same suspicion using his rationale. Others have made edits similar to mine that enrealidad have done away with. We are at loggerheads here, hence the necessity of a third party stepping in.
I'd also be happy to speak of the specific differences. xcuref1endx (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Tamfang
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:Bob Avakian discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Francis Schonken on 06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC).
| Futile. One side of the dispute, represented by the IP editor, has not chosen to participate. Moreover, at the very bottom this may also be more of a conduct issue than a content issue and there appears to be an ongoing effort to address it in that manner. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview IP-editor (identifying as "Martin" ) tries to overemphasise Cambridge Apostles and their influence on the Bloomsbury Group, lacking sound references for verifiability: - - - ; ultimately takes it personal at e.g. Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussions at:
(not on user talk pages while editor changes IP every half a dozen edits) How do you think we can help? Help explaining to the IP-editor (e.g., on the talk pages indicated above):
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I am not too hopeful that this process will work. For a long, long time I have tried to persuade the IP self-identified as "Martin" to give proper sources and be civil. But he seems to have more problems with my nationality and the place where I live than care about the needs of the encyclopaedia. See here for a sample. Mr. martin is also claiming to be ("the 'Ascension Parish Burial Ground' expert"). He must show a considerable change in attitude before this is going to work. By the way, I have to believe that the IP also uses this account: Nitramrekcap. The Banner talk 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC) But we can always try! See for the ongoing problem ALL of the references to 'Cambridge Apostles' are referenced in their individual WIKI articles Francis S.!. "Martin" claims here that all are referenced in their individual articles. So I have checked the articles of the five people whose name start with an L: 1 referenced mention, 3 unreferenced mentions and one not mentioned at all. To my opinion, this shows how unreliable the edits of "Martin" are. The Banner talk 00:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 2.30.187.230Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:List of Bloomsbury Group people#The Bloomsbury Group discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk: 19 Kids and Counting
– New discussion.
Filed by 65.205.13.26 on 18:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is dispute over this section. Homebirth info is added and sourced, kirin reverts. The information had been there for years. Since Kirin started editing the info has been deemed unneccessary and repeatedly removed.
The homebirths were talked about ad nauseum. They were shown on the show. The eldest daughters jana,jill,jessa are training in midwifery. Anna --who married into the family-- is for homebirths and had one. Michelle gives speeches about it, interviews about it. Jill just announced she is pregnant and said she wants a home birth because it is more comfortable.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I deleted the table since we disagreed on content. Kirin restored it. Then Kirin accused me of sockpuppeting--I did not--, got her friend to block me. another editor even told Kirin that Kirin acted inappropriately. Kirin and that admin's overacting still hasnt been addressed. Kirin is exerting control of the article when we are all here to edit.
Here is where the chart has been previously discussed
- Talk:19 Kids_and_Counting#Proposed_table
- Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Removal_of_birth_info
- 19 Kids_and_Counting#Duggar_family
- Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#what_should_be_in_chart.3F 65.205.13.26 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is where the chart was removed until consensus could be reached, but Kirin reverted : http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=19_Kids_and_Counting&diff=621345909&oldid=621296476 65.205.13.26 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you think we can help?
Tell kirin to stop acting as if it is kirin's article. The information is sourced and factual. The information had been in the article/chart for years. Sources have been added(kirin's original reason for deleting the info). We are all trying to make the article better afterall. On my end, I think i did explain my edits and did try to discuss on the talk page. But if you are able to offer me advice to better my edits please do.
Summary of dispute by Kirin13
- First, the false accusation: My "friend" who blocked IP for sockpuppetry (among other issues) was DeltaQuad, with whom, I don't recall ever interacting with before (or after) this issue. IP's statement that "got her friend to block me" implies DQ is abusing his admin and checkuser powers, which are awfully strong accusations. Besides DQ, at least five other admin's reviewed the case and declined IP's justifications. For further info, please see: 1, 2, 3.
- Besides myself & the IP, two other users have joined the discussion. One is nuetral and the other, Metheglyn, supports exclusion - diff. No one except IP1 and IP2 (whom admins judged to be same person) have supported inclusion - see talk page.
- Two of five notes IP is arguing to add are still unsourced after repeated claims that everything is sourced - diff.
- Multiple times compromises were offered to include this info in other sections and explained why this structured table was not a good place for this info. E.g. see 1, 2, 3, 4.
- IP's above argument for inclusion are claims that IP has never sourced. To my knowledge, the 'facts' that these women are training to be midwives and that the family are big homebirth advocates have never been in the article. Yet IP insists on using these 'important facts' as justification to make additions to table that say neither of these 'facts'. If IP has reliable sources (preferable secondary, so we know it's important) for midwives/homebirth advocates facts, then these facts can be added to the appropriate sections, but this is all irrelevant to the edits in question, since IP has never tried to include this info.
Kirin13 (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
| User conduct will NOT be discussed |
|---|
|
This is where we disagree. YOU say it does not go in the table. Why is what you say the answer? The information was in the table for quite some time--since 2009 february-- until you Kirin decided to claim ownership of the article. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Growing Up Duggar their book is 7 65.205.13.26 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Kirin13's reply
Kirin13 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You used parentheses to emphasis/ to single out/ to draw attention to the information as if it were not true. It is fact. Jana Duggar, Jill Duggar and rest are training to be midwives. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
Talk: 19 Kids and Counting
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hello. I am a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Before beginning the discussion, there are a couple of things to note. Firstly, volunteers here have no special powers and abilities to enforce a particular course of action. Secondly, please respect both parties and assume good faith. Thirdly, the DR/N is not a place to discuss user conduct and issues concerning user conduct should be taken elsewhere. Attempts to discuss user conduct will not be entertained. Be sure to focus the discussion on content only to reach consensus.
With that, let us move onto the conflict. I believe that there are two main problems. The first question is whether there are reliable sources for the information. The second is, assuming that there are adequate sources, how the information should be incorporated into the article. Since the second question is moot if the first question is not resolved, let's cover the sourcing first. User:65.205.13.26, do you have any sources to support the information that you are trying to include? KJ 10:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
KJ Hello. Thank You for you help with 19K&C article. Homebirths were discussed on numerous episodes of the show. Please give me sometime to find the specific episodes. Written sources are : -NBC's today show interview, -ABC's GMA show interview, -various interviews with homebirth organisations
-their books The Duggars; 20 And Counting , - book A Love That Multiplies
-http://duggarsblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/home-births.html
-http://www.christianpost.com/news/michelle-duggar-experience-helps-a-lot-during-delivery-mom-of-19-says-120899
Midwife training :
-their book Growing Up Duggar
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8z_9qWekR4
-http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/04/17/19-kids-and-counting-midwife-jill-jana-duggar-baby-video/
-michelle says draw attn to your inner light : http://www.crossmap.com/blogs/19-kids-and-counting-michelle-duggar-on-teaching-young-adults-about-modesty-5140
I am looking for more. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
| User DQ's note and reply |
|---|
Kirin writes then Delta comes immediately after. Yet they do no know each other? Hmmm Since you are here kirin, or should I say Delta, what did check user say ?65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
- I'll comment on the sources that URL's were provided for:
- duggarsblog.blogspot.com is an unofficial blog by two amateur writers – this is not a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards.
- christianpost.com looks like an acceptable source for which children were born by c-section.
- Midwife sources are irrelevant since this info has never been added to article.
- crossmap.com article seems to be completely unrelated to homebirths or midwife training.
- Side note: in general, Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources (e.g. christianpost.com article) vs. primary sources (e.g. the tv episodes). So looking for the specific tv episodes is unnecessary unless there is no secondary sources.
- Kirin13 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll comment on the sources that URL's were provided for:
- So, can we agree that there are enough reliable sources, WP:SELFPUB or secondary, that the information could be cited if it is added to the article? Discussions of specific sources can be made afterwards. KJ 00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The sources for the c-section weren't in question (though no reliable sources for the homebirths of Jinger & Joseph have been provided here which are 2/5 notes he's trying to add). The question has always been where. IP believes it should be in the table or the entire table should be deleted. I believe it doesn't belong in table but can be added in several areas where there are paragraphs about the family history and show plot. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- So, can we agree that there are enough reliable sources, WP:SELFPUB or secondary, that the information could be cited if it is added to the article? Discussions of specific sources can be made afterwards. KJ 00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- The source is not for the c section. If you read the article in it Michelle says she had homebirths for jinger and josiah. duggarsblog is sanctioned by the duggar family. They have given multiple interviews to teh blog owners ellie/lily and invited ellie/lily to jill's wedding. Again if christianpost was read it says info on homebirths; numerous homebirths. Midwife sources are not irrelevant. Crossmap you are right about; that source is for other info for the article. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Before continuing, both users be noted that collapsing the conversations mean that the conversations are out of the scope of the discussion and should not be replied to or considered. If the users wish to continue accusations of user conduct, take it somewhere else. If the discussion continue to center on user conduct, this discussion may be closed. Also, please don't edit the previous comments, even if they are your own and you're simply adding information to them. Use the strikeout <s> </s> Wiki markup to mark the comment and add a new comment.
With that, let's move on. User 65, the only source I can see to classify a birth as a homebirth or not is the duggarsblog article (other articles mention homebirths, but not specific ones). Is this correct? And could you demonstrate how the duggarsblog goes beyond WP:SPS? KJ 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:John B._Taschner#This_page_should_not_be_deleted_because...
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Castemke on 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC).
| DRN does not handle disputes pending in other venues which have their own resolution procedures or procedures. Articles for Deletion is one of those. An administrator or experienced editor will evaluate the arguments made at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John B. Taschner and determine whether or not the article should survive. Please make your case for retention there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The Misplaced Pages article on John B. Taschner is up for deletion. I have edited it several times today (and backed up all of my edits with citations, references, and sources), but I am not sure that it has made the necessary impact. I would like to know where I can argue against deletion of Taschner's article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have already posted a comment on the Talk board for the article. How do you think we can help? I would like to make sure I am posting my comments against deleting the article in the right place. I would also like for Misplaced Pages to review the page: someone seems to be arbitrarily deleting my work, despite the fact that it meets criteria. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:John B._Taschner#This_page_should_not_be_deleted_because... discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias
– New discussion.
Filed by Plarem on 14:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
I have disputed the neutrality of a section at LGBT rights in Croatia, I gave my comments, trying to be helpful and constructive, the other editor assumed ownership of the article, did not assume good faith and attacked me, calling me "homophobic".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion.
How do you think we can help?
By putting in a third, neutral opinion about my changes and propositions for change into the article, and discussing the points brought in by the other editor.
Summary of dispute by 11raccoon1
The user Plarem is obviously not happy with LGBT rights in general. He tried to change Zagreb Pride and Split Pride headlines into just Zagreb and Split, and claims the word pride is a LGBT propaganda, and a "liberal" word. Furthermore, he also changed the headline that says "LGBT Prides and other marches" to "Promotion of LGBT issues", claiming that it was one sided and liberal. He also stated that certain citations are needed, even though they already exist at the end of the paragraph "Living condition."
In the introduction he added completely new bit where he talks how same-sex marriage in Croatia is not legal because of the Catholic church. Croatia is a secular country where government and the parliament are responsible for creating new laws. Not the Church. The user also claims that article needs opposition to LGBT rights to make it neutral. I don't understand what sort of opposition does he have in mind? The article talks about opposition to LGBT rights from the outset and throughout. So what is the problem?
The user created the pie chart, using the word. "extremely." The source says people who oppose same-sex marriage feel strongly about it. They are not extremely against, but strongly.
He also insists that Croatian Constitution bans same-sex marriage. Croatian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And that is de jure. The user claims same-sex marriages are banned. It is true that it is not possible to have them, but what I care is what the law says. And that is what I put on Misplaced Pages. I do not add my personal interpretations of any law. Myself and other people have been working hard on this article, and it seems sad to let somebody destroy it. I am responsible for most of it, and am very happy when people add things, or correct mine if it's constructive. But this is just pointless what the user Plarem is doing. He also said that I should get over the fact "gay propaganda" is not acceptable. I claim that this article is neutral and based on facts. Personal interpretations are not wanted, just like in any other article. I believe this user is doing this as a result of disagreeing with LGBT rights.11raccoon1 (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:LGBT rights in Croatia#'Public promotion of LGBT issues' bias discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.1) In regard to constitutional marriage amendment.
While primary source (i.e constitution itself) does not say literally same-sex marriage is banned, the amendment is interpreted in this way by secondary sources. According to Misplaced Pages policies, the articles should not be based solely on primary sources, reliable secondary sources also should be taken into account. I don't see nothing wrong with Plaren's edits in this area, as long as they are kept in neutral manner.
2) In regard to Public promotion of LGBT issues term.
The term is certainly not neutral. I see this as an attempt to insert personal views to the article. Has anyone heard of this term before? This could qualify as OR. I don't see nothing wrong with the term of Gay Pride or Pride Parade, because these are names used by the organizers. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- However, on the other hand, I don't see the term 'LGBT propaganda' as anything wrong, it is often used, but I was told that it was against WP:NPOV, so I came up with that as a neutral alternative. – Plarem 21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your alternative is also against WP:NPOV. Propose something else and try to build consensus before editing. Ron 1987 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
3) In regard to the leading section.
In general, I'm ok with expansion of the leading section. In my opinion it's not too big and summarizes (at least some) key points of the article. As for the grammar, I'm not expert, and my English is not perfect. So no comment... Ron 1987 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, I am a volunteer here at the DRN. Welcome. Let me start of by requesting that all editors refrain from further edit warring on the article. That must stop.
- My first question is: Why is "Public promotion of LGBT issues" considered non neutral and why do you feel that is original research. It was a header title of a section or subsection not a reference to a group, subject/figure or situation requiring a reference. So lets be clear with that. The word "propaganda" is indeed non neutral.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see a much difference between promotion and propaganda. These events are called Pride parades, also on Misplaced Pages. The Wiki article about it has that name, see Pride parade. I don't see any reason to not to use that name in other articles. He tried similar maneuvers in other articles see , , , Ron 1987 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Mark, there's a thread on WP:ANEW as well. If it were up to me--but it isn't since I rewrote the lead--raccoon here would have been blocked for edit warring already. The thread was filed by the (as far as I know) uninvolved CombatWombat42. That's not to say anything about which one of these is wrong, but raccoon is certainly acting wrongly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up Drmies!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)