Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 107

Talk:Battle of the Somme
{{hat|The principal issue was whether to include a particular clause. That issue is being resolved by a Request for Comments. No other issues appear to require mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (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

Battle of the Somme A difference of opinion about language in the lead section between User:Thomask0 and me has got a little entrenched and several other editors have joined in, generating more heat than light.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page until it went in circles and attracted other editors. My revert of a Thomask0 edit (there have been some frivolous edits of the article reverted by me and other editors in recent months) was reverted, re-reverted and representations of points of view eventually followed on the talk page, which have got nowhere. At present two more editors have joined in and The ed17 has intervened (warning me but not the others).

How do you think we can help?

Clarify with each editor that they are applying the same criteria re: edits and discussions, clarifying with each editor that Article layout priorities and due weight are being given and gaining a neutral opinion over good faith.

Summary of dispute by Thomask0
In my opinion, the dispute centers on the accuracy, style, and appropriate position in the article of certain points. The article is it stands at the time of the edit lock is pretty much as it should be as far as I'm concerned. Comparing it with the prior state, I have the following criticisms of the contested matter:
 * 1) The contested matter makes an unsourced claim; namely that it is significant to the article's overall subject that certain English-only speakers are unable to access certain non-English documents. There is no mention of how many such people there are, nor who they may be, nor of why their language and/or cultural position is significant.
 * 2) The above claim is made using extremely obscure phrasing -- "anglophone monoglots" -- obscure to the extent that the phrase has had to be wikilinked. The phrase in question produces only 500 hits on a General Google search, 53 on a Google Books search, and zero on a Google Ngram search. Given the size of Google's search bases, those numbers are extremely small. This problem is made worse by the fact that in the context of the matter concerned, the phrase "English-speakers" is a suitable and easily understood alternative.
 * 3) Overall, even if the above two points were corrected, the contested matter itself is not sufficiently significant to merit a position in the article's lead. As it stands (with the material moved further down), the lead gives an accurate precis of the article's subject. Moving the contested material into a dedicated "Historiography" section, with removal of the obscure prose and either removal of unsourced propositions or provision of sources, solves the problem

Summary of dispute by The ed17
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am involved in this only in my capacity as an administrator. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of the Somme discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am willing to serve as the volunteer moderator. I don't claim to know anything about the Battle of the Somme other than that it was part of World War One and was extremely bloody. I will state a few ground rules. Statements should be concise and civil, and should focus on article content, not conduct or contributors. What does each of the parties want with respect to the article? What sections of the article are involved, and what are the content questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Keith-264
Thank you for taking the trouble. As it happens an assisted dialogue has reopened on the talk page, which promises to make this request redundant if the others agree. Perhaps you could drop in Talk:Battle of the Somme to see the state of play? Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Thomask0
I agree with Keith, in that it might be worth a quick look towards the end of Talk:Battle_of_the_Somme where we may be converging on some kind of consensus. If further statements of opinion are needed, fair enough, but the aforementioned assisted discussion may obviate that. (And I reiterate Keith's vote of thanks for your help.)Thomask0 (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, unfortunately I have to rescind the above note about convergence. Apparently we are going to need your help after all. I've provided my editor's statement on the Talk page as requested. Just FYI, note that although this is pretty much a two-position dispute, there are three editors involved at this time; myself, Keith-264 above, and. I thought I should point that out because only two of us are represented on this WP:DRN page. Thomask0 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator
I will restate my opening statement. I don't claim to know anything about the Battle of the Somme other than that it was part of World War One and was extremely bloody. I will state a few ground rules. Statements should be concise and civil, and should focus on article content, not conduct or contributors. What does each of the parties want with respect to the article? What sections of the article are involved, and what are the content questions?

I don't see any reference in the current article to "Anglophone monoglots", which is a strange phrase in context anyway, since it refers to English-speakers, presumably who are not fluent in French or German, but it is itself just barely English, being partly Greek.

Discussion should, in general, be here rather than on the article talk page, just so that it doesn't get all spread out. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Keith-264
The developments on the article talk page are what I thought I was asking for, when I requested dispute resolution and it seems pointless to continue here, since it looks like it's in the bag. If the others agree I'd like to withdraw the request. ["I don't see any reference in the current article to "Anglophone monoglots", which is a strange phrase in context anyway, since it refers to English-speakers, presumably who are not fluent in French or German, but it is itself just barely English, being partly Greek." Do you consider this to be fact or opinion? English is full of loan words.]Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Thomask0
I should say (with only the mildest trepidation :-) ) that I agree with Keith in that we were almost there and I don't object to him withdrawing the request. The reason you (Robert) can't find "anglophone monoglots" is simply because the page was locked mid-dispute, and it just happened to have been locked in a state where the phrase had been removed. You may already have noticed that since I see you struck out your comment about not being able to find it. Thomask0 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Rjensen
One of the problems of the article is the thin attention it pays to the British Empire. I propose to expand the historiography to include the Australian and Canadian experiences and interpretations. Let me quote two standard histories of Australia and Canada:
 * Australia: “the passage of time, the reduction of the British and German empires to mere memory, the spread of pacifism, mass immigration, and participation the disastrous Vietnam War, together began to extinguish the view that the great war, however horrible, and been worth the cost....By the 1990s it was a commonplace that the war had been a tragic and purposeless waste, and Australia's part of it a case of mistaken willingness by Australians the fight other people's wars. Many scholars shared those views [but not all]."  The Oxford Companion to Australian History (2001) p 699
 * Canada: "those trapped in the slaughter of the Somme...had only contempt for those who sent them. Their disdain has been transmitted to the rest of us by war poetry and memoirs, and by generations of derivative textbooks.  To soldiers, too, the difference between a good and a bad shell was the butcher's bill: the Somme was bad indeed. (The book goes on to attack Haig's profound mistakes.)  Desmond Morton, When You are Numbers Up: a Canadian soldier in the First World War''Is (1993) pp 153-4 Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer moderator
Discussion about the content dispute that is within the scope of this dispute resolution should take place here, not on the article talk page. While discussion on the talk page may be useful, it will not be taken into account in trying to reach consensus via moderated discussion. If all of the editors agree that this discussion has been resolved, this dispute will be closed as resolved. Otherwise we should continue discussion here, not on the article talk page. I am copying the statement by Thomask0. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the protocol here; is it OK to comment or ask/answer questions within another editor's statement on this page? Assuming it is (feel free to move this if not): my feeling is that almost all of the dispute has been resolved, but one point remains to be concluded. I think the unresolved point concerns the "English-speaking world" caveat -- both that lack of French/German language, and "insularity" render this a controversy that is restricted to the "English-speaking world")-- Keith wants mentioned in the lead. As to the factual validity of that, I have no clue (although the "insularity" aspect sounds both implausible and difficult to defend). However, Rjensen, who I suspect is better informed than me, has pushed back on the caveat, saying that the "insularity" component is simply not true, and on the language side noting that it is common among history academics to have translation work done when needed. Pinging to encourage him to clarify that on this page. Thomask0 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "... the Great War was seen by the vast majority of British people as a just and worthwhile war. There is evidence too, that such attitudes continued to hold sway in the immediate aftermath of the war." "There were of course exceptions." "The same is true of many war memoirs.... Why then did popular opinion undergo such a dramatic change?" "The dam finally burst in 1929." Forgotten Victory Sheffield, G. D. 2001, pp. 5-11

"By the 1920s and 1930s the Official Histories were no longer alone...." "The accounts of... witnesses... and participants.... Wider historical works too... helped to reinforce the great cultural mythology of the war as having wasted an entire generation of British manhood." [French, Churchill, Lloyd George] "Motivated in the main by self-justification, these works advanced, through their accusation and acrimony, this sense of large-scale loss and waste and blame." p. 2

Green, A. (2003). Writing the Great War: Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories 1915–1948. London: Frank Cass. ISBN 0-7146-8430-9.

"... Moreover, although almost all of these [German sources] are accessible only to German-speakers.... (Foreword R Holmes p. 6)

Sheldon, J. (2005). The German Army on the Somme 1914–1916 (Pen & Sword Military 2006 ed.). London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 1-84415-269-3.

"English-language historians.... However their research is too often written from the perspective of one side only. It pays little or no attention to the sources available to the Germans...." Foreword: Strachan p. xiii

"For monoglot scholars, this translation will be a boon beyond measure." p. xiv

Humphries, M. O.; Maker, J. (2010). Germany's Western Front: Translations from the German Official History of the Great War. Waterloo Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-1-55458-259-4.

Have these sources on the talk page been overlooked? Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to rebut the above, so unless Rjensen wants to weigh in, I think Keith's "English-speaking" caveat should be considered justified. I'd give the rest of today to respond. If he doesn't I think we're probably there. Even if he does, I personally think the above sound sufficient to permit mention of the "English-speaking" caveat in the Historiography section. But also, lacking any opposition, it sounds like we're good for it to be in the lead too. (However, we should stick to the agreed brevity and avoidance of obscure language.) Thomask0 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that Keith-264 badly misreads the historiography. Here are some examples: the source says "English speaking" but Keith-264  reads that "can not read German or French."  My main point is that the German and the French sources do not discuss the failures or achievements or achievements of the British high command.  They focus almost exclusively on the performance of the German and French armies, so they are of little use in evaluating the British.  The whole point of this debate is evaluating the British.  When a source says that the after the victory in 1918 the Great War had popular support, Keith-264 reads that is saying the Somme was not seen as a horrible disaster.  Edmunds in the official British history that appeared in 1938 did not call the Somme a great victory (Simkins pp 19-20). By the 1930s (historians agree) the "donkeys" theme was dominant. The official Australian history made it explicit that the Somme was a terrible disaster. Rjensen (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (I don't know if I'm supposed to comment here, if not please move this to the talk page). Hi Rjensen - in my view the point made by the "revisionist school", and which can be found more or less in the Sheffield reference Keith posted above, is twofold. First, they observe that "evaluating the British" is a common approach from British historians, but necessarily an incomplete one. Second, the evaluation made by the French and Germans contains evidence about the correct interpretation of the British. To put it crudely, German sources saying "the Somme was a disaster for us" provide evidence that was nor previously included in the prevailing British interpretation (and which, coincidentally enough, supports the arguments this school of historians are making in reassessing the battle). The Land (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not equipped to adjudicate between the respective positions of Keith-264, and Rjensen, but the fact that there is a difference shows that we have a controversy about the controversy. To me that says this point -- "English-speaking world" yada yada -- simply does not belong in the lead. And in that respect I, as the least subject-matter qualified of the three of us, am in fact the *most* qualified to say what a non-expert would expect to see in the lead. The mere fact of the controversy -- that opinions differ on the historiography -- is a lesser matter, barely worthy of mention although I've already said I would not object to it being mentioned briefly. But the controversy over the controversy -- that the difference in opinion is in some way to do with an insular attitude and lack of English translations -- is to me, *an expert in being a non-expert*, utterly minor. So my vote would be to restrict the lead mention to the controversy's existence and, if required, the key players. Something like:

"The battle has been the focus of controversy since 1916, over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in which are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George."

(I'm only maintaining the three names there because Keith-264 inserted them. I don't really know who was prominent and, as a general reader looking at the lead and expecting to see information about the battle itself and not the arguments over the next 100 years, I don't really care. I know I can look to the Historiography section if I want more details.) Thomask0 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What insular attitude? Look the word up in a dictionary, as I pointed out above it's not there as a pejorative term. Remember how as you tried to reword the sentence to increase precision, you added words, got your tenses tangled, committed pleonasm and used "controversy" twice? This often happens when we write using a small vocabulary and second-guess a hypothetical reader, which is why I'm picky about prose. A general readership is not necessarily ignorant or stupid and wikilinks and notes sections are available, to avoid long-winded explanations and digressions. I think that a note of caution in the Lead, that the battle is obscured by concerns local to the British and a lack of information about 2/3 of the participants, is unavoidable.

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect."

How about this?


 * Jensen is treating revisionist English-language writing about the battle as if it's definitive, when a comparative point of view is necessary to avoid an insular history of the battle, which ignores two of the three armies.

Philpott (2009) has an aftermath chapter (15) pp. 539–594 on the early period ("remembrance") but then wanders into digression and the Franco-German experience ignored by the British revisionists. Chapter 17 (Memory fades) pp. 592–593 on AJP Taylor and the 60s zeitgeist then refers to Winter and Prost who see three overlapping "configurations". First: post war diplomatic and military history and a battle of the memoirs (much of it bent) and official histories intended to be useful for the post war armies. Second: 1960s everyman and anti-boss class. Third: The Somme as cultural phenomenon and social conflict. Pp. 619 [The Somme] ...Dyer has suggested, "deeply buried under its own aftermath." Pp. 622 "These are all British myths: an Anglo-Saxon Battle of the Somme, not the complete three empire encounter."

The point of the quotations is to cite what I'm on about rather than making inferences about hypothetical readers and their literacy. The quotations show that at least some relatively recent (post revisionist) historians think that English-language histories of the battle are incomplete, without a history of the German and French battles (and the place of the Somme in the general Allied offensive of 1916) - it's not just me riding a hobby-horse. Compare the depth of information available about the Germans Second Battle of Artois here, because of the Canadian translation of Der Weltkrieg for 1915 and Sheldon.


 * Keith-264, it's a shame at this late stage that you indulge in less than useful criticism of personal writing style. So far I've been discussing what should be said in the lead section, not (yet) how it should be said. If there is indeed a problem it's that I'm trying to squeeze into the lead something which doesn't really belong there. Given your snide remarks, it's probably easiest if I return to my original and preferred position: I object to this controversy being mentioned at all in the lead. If you and the other editors disagree, you can argue over what goes in there. But once again, your uncooperative and insulting attitude is serving to move us away from, not towards consensus. Thomask0 (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We've been discussing a form of words, having agreed to put something back in the Lead, so what else is there to discuss?

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect."

I addressed your point about the personalities by taking them out. My comments were not snide, they were sincere and I'm disappointed that you think different, particularly given that I owned them.

This often happens when we write using a small vocabulary and second-guess a hypothetical reader, which is why I'm picky about prose.

If I'd wanted to hurt your feelings, I would have insinuated that you have a fat arse.Keith-264 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "...a form of words, having agreed to put something back in the Lead...". Well you've successfully managed to convince me that that is a bad idea after all; I've updated my third statement accordingly. (I hope my use of "that that" isn't me committing yet more pleonasm.) Thomask0 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fnar! No but successfully managed is. To reiterate, I was describing my reasons for the form of words I suggested, bearing in mind your point of view about the names and explaining why. I'm not Inspector 264 of the Pleaonasm Police and claim no precedence, only the right to an opinion. It's 12:57 p.m. here so I'll look in tomorrow morning. Keith-264 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Keith-264
I think that the deterioration of the article was temporarily arrested by the edit lock but to give a little to get a little, I would support the return of a form of words like this to the Lead

"The battle is controversial [or has been controversial since 1916] in the English-speaking world, over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in which are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George."

rather than "This battle was and continues to be controversial over its significance and necessity. At the center of the controversy are the actions of Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George."

because it ignores the insularity of the controversy, was and continues mixes tenses, center is in American English and controversial appears twice. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Thomask0
(Someone -- I'm guessing Robert McClenon -- inserted text here on my behalf. I think they were copying from my list-of-questions summary, but they only copied part of it. Given more recent discussions, I've replaced that insert with my current views.)


 * 1) The century-old and still ongoing historiographical controversy should remain exclusively in the Historiography section. It is not appropriate to be mentioned in the Article's lead, nor is there any need to mention it in the Aftermath section, which should be reserved for, as the name suggests, the aftermath of the battle.
 * 2) Mention of an alleged "English-speaking world" caveat should be deleted unless more rigorous backup can be provided. Even if such backup is provided, the point should be made without recourse to the obscure phrase: "anglophone monoglots".

Thomask0 (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer moderator
In looking over the lede section of the current version of the article, I don't see a statement about the interpretation of the battle being controversial. Is the question about the lede whether to add such a paragraph and what its wording should be? If so, is the controversy in particular in English-speaking countries and/or in historiography in the English language (as opposed to in other languages such as French or German)? If so, why is the controversy limited to English historiography, other than that the individuals mentioned were British?

Also, there has been a spelling question raised. Is there any objection to slapping a British English tag on the talk page and enforcing British spelling? ✅ Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to focus first on the lede section (top-down), and to defer any changes to Historiography and Aftermath until the lede is resolved, unless other editors would prefer to go bottom-up. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by User:Keith-264
The word insular can have pejorative connotations but it is being used literally here; much of the history written in German and French has not been translated. If it had (like some of it in Duffy, Philpott and Sheldon for e.g.) or not been lost in 1945, the context in which English-language writing has taken place would be different. The Butchers and bunglers revisionist school would have given way to a historical view of the battle. Despite the changes made by research into contemporary records of the BEF and the beginning made in resurrecting the role of the German and French armies in the last three decades, the pop-history view of the battle is still probably the most widespread in the English-speaking world and I think it helps to refer to this in the lead. The French and Russians had been fighting battles like this since 1914 and 1 July wasn't exceptional for the French except for the magnitude of their success, which with the British success in the south, means that the first day wasn't an unmitigated success for the Germans [but a big defeat]. This can be quite startling for readers (according to several who have commented on it). Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by User:Thomask0
There's a tiny danger we're going over well-trodden ground here, and re-hashing points that Keith, Rjensen and I have discussed in depth on the article's Talk page. However, to clarify:


 * The reason you can't see the statement about the controversy in the article is because the article was locked mid-dispute. See an earlier revision for an example of the contested matter (last paragraph in the lead)
 * The lead aspect of the dispute concerned three things: whether to mention the controversy at all in the lead (I think we now all agree we should); whether the idea was valid that the controversy was restricted to the English-speaking world (this is still disputed); and whether the length and prose style was suitable (I think we've agreed on this too).
 * I have no objection to having this tagged as British English.
 * Focusing first on the lead seems sensible.

Now you (Robert) ask: "If so, is the controversy in particular in English-speaking countries and/or in historiography in the English language (as opposed to in other languages such as French or German)? If so, why is the controversy limited to English historiography, other than that the individuals mentioned were British?" Those are still open questions. Keith believes the English-speaking caveat is both true and significant. Rjensen has said he doesn't think it's valid. For my part, I really don't know. I do think that the caveat Keith is making is slightly stronger than this being an English-speaker issue. I think he's saying it's a function of British insularity -- maybe not as strong as a "Little Englander" accusation, but heading in that direction (Keith?).

Thomask0 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Debate about "donkeys and lions" is exclusively in the English language materials ( British and Australian, and also American), Because it deals exclusively with the British generals. The debate does not concern the German and French generals.  The German and French writers pay much less attention to the Somme in general. They ignore the British role for the most part.  To be specific: no one has quoted any German or French source that deals with the "donkeys and lions" debate we are now engaged in.Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For a German view of Australian soldiery in 1916 see here Battle of Fromelles. If you don't read German or French how do you know? you could count the pages on the Sommeschlacht here. You could also point out that with bigger armies, which had been fighting mass warfare since 1914, it's inevitable that the debut of the British continental-sized army in 1916 wouldn't be the shock to them as it was to the British. To be specific: you agree that it is an insular debate and that access to French and German writing about the other 2/3 of the participants, necessarily puts that debate into a comparative context. (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits)

"At the end of the year the German intelligence officers concluded that 'the gigantic dimensions of the Battle of the Somme have put the events of the war before 1 July 1916 so much in the shade that in Britain they reckon that the real war began only from that time." "Most of the front-line soldiers too are extremely proud of what they have achieved so far. Again and again we hear from prisoners the self-satisfied question: 'Don't you think we have done very well?'" p. 328 (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits)

Duffy, C. (2006). Through German Eyes: The British and the Somme 1916 (Phoenix 2007 ed.). London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. ISBN 978-0-7538-2202-9. (<--- Keith-264, please sign your edits) This was one edit.Keith-264 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by User:Rjensen
Copied to here by moderator One of the problems of the article is the thin attention it pays to the British Empire. I propose to expand the historiography to include the Australian and Canadian experiences and interpretations. Let me quote two standard histories of Australia and Canada:
 * Australia: “the passage of time, the reduction of the British and German empires to mere memory, the spread of pacifism, mass immigration, and participation the disastrous Vietnam War, together began to extinguish the view that the great war, however horrible, and been worth the cost....By the 1990s it was a commonplace that the war had been a tragic and purposeless waste, and Australia's part of it a case of mistaken willingness by Australians the fight other people's wars. Many scholars shared those views [but not all]."  The Oxford Companion to Australian History (2001) p 699
 * Canada: "those trapped in the slaughter of the Somme...had only contempt for those who sent them. Their disdain has been transmitted to the rest of us by war poetry and memoirs, and by generations of derivative textbooks.  To soldiers, too, the difference between a good and a bad shell was the butcher's bill: the Somme was bad indeed. (The book goes on to attack Haig's profound mistakes.)  Desmond Morton, When You are Numbers Up: a Canadian soldier in the First World War''Is (1993) pp 153-4 Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by volunteer moderator
Threaded discussion is not permitted. This is a moderated discussion, not an article talk page. Threaded comments will be moved if feasible, and hatted if moving them is not feasible. Commenting on other editors is not permitted. Comments on other editors will be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be asking you to repeat some of which you said in the fourth round, because the fourth round exchange became chaotic. Exactly what changes do each of you propose to the lede section of the article? Please be concise and propose specific wording.

Is there agreement that something can be said to the effect of: "This battle is controversial, at least in English-language historiography" ...? Is the reason why the battle is more controversial in English than in French or German because it was the first battle in which the British and their Commonwealth allies had deployed the sort of enormous army that the French and Germans had already deployed in 1914 and 1915? Should that reason be mentioned?

Do the participants in this discussion agree to refrain from editing the article while moderated discussion is in progress? If so, can we request the locking administrator to unlock the article to permit other editors to edit, and to permit the moderator to insert any changes resulting from consensus?

Since we are deferring discussion of the other sections of the article, does that mean that discussion of British Commonwealth participation can be deferred? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by User:Keith-264
Apologies Robert, we're all new to this.

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect."

This will satisfy me as regards the Lead. I have conceded that a "Historiography" section has been added over my objections and that my hands have been tied and the same goes for "anglophone monoglots" (can anyone offer two words or fewer which means the same thing?). There is commentary in English-language sources that has been cited, which puts the battle in a comparative context, notes that mass casualties were unsurprising to the continentals by mid-1916 and that much of this context appears in German and French writing which has not been translated. Writers in English have been cited and quoted, some of whom are French- or German-speakers and have added detail on the French and German experiences, from official histories, monographs and archives, which have a bearing on the British experience and writing on it since. (Comment in the Lead about this was an early casualty of the revert frenzy.)

Rjensen [An editor] has added other concerns about the article since discussion began; I am willing to discuss them wherever and am sure that other people are too, which might make the talk page a better venue. I suggest that a general inquiry on the milhist notice board, for opinion on Australian and Canadian writing about the battle and whether it is satisfactorily represented will help. [all one edit] Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fifth statement by User:Thomask0
Thomask0 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything should be changed in the Article from how it was in its recently locked state (with the possible exception of some rationalization of the Historiography section)
 * I don't object to the locking editor being asked to unlock and I agree to refrain from editing during this moderated discussion
 * I don't object to the discussion of British Commonwealth participation being deferred

Sixth statement by volunteer moderator
Can we get agreement that the lede can include: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Details of the controversy can be discussed in Historiography (and are deferred).

Do the participants in this discussion agree to refrain from editing the article while moderated discussion is in progress? If so, can we request the locking administrator to unlock the article to permit other editors to edit, and to permit the moderator to insert any changes resulting from consensus?

Are there any other issues about the lede section?

Sixth statement by User:Keith-264
"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes


 * Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated. Keith-264 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I undertake not to edit the page except via a moderator for the duration.Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sixth statement by User:Thomask0
I'm unsure of what the state of resolution is. The questions being asked in this sixth round seem almost identical to some of those of the fifth round. My answers are therefore pretty much what they were in that round:

Thomask0 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that the proposed statement should be added to the lead; I don't believe its content is significant enough to be in the lead at all. Overall, in the context of the dispute, I don't believe anything should be changed in the Article from how it was in its recently locked state (with the possible exception of some rationalization of the Historiography section, which we are deferring)
 * I don't object to the locking editor being asked to unlock and I agree to refrain from editing during this moderated discussion
 * I believe that the lead could benefit from further simplification, but that's unrelated to and of much lower importance than this dispute

Seventh statement by volunteer moderator
I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no. We have three options. First, Keith-264 can agree (concede) to leave the lede as is, and we can move on to discussion of the rest of the article. Second, the two editors, Keith-264 and Thomask0, can agree that the question of the inclusion of that sentence in the lede can be decided by a Request for Comments. In that case, either we can proceed to other sections of the article, or we can close moderated discussion. I realize that discussion of other sections of the article may be dependent on the issue of the lede. Third, if the parties do not agree to an RFC, I can do a general close of moderated discussion. Those are the three choices. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Keith-264
"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect"? Yes Para 2 "The first day on the Somme was [also] a serious defeat for the German Second Army," add "also" as indicated.

These amendments are essential if the quality of the article is to be maintained. If necessary I will abide by a majority decision obtained by a request for comments. Keith-264 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Thomask0
There is a fourth option. I would not object to the addition of the following to the lead:

"The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect"

Failing that, I agree to the request of and would abide by WP:RFC. I note, however, that until only very recently, we had three editors involved, in which case WP:3 could have been a simpler and quicker route to resolution. Is it worth waiting a day or two, or the moderator pinging that third editor in case he is only temporarily absent? Thomask0 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Seventh statement by User:Rjensen
I Support "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) As for Day 1, I'm not sure who would call it a defeat for the Germans. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by volunteer moderator
I asked whether a sentence could be added to the lede section of the article, that the battle has been controversial, at least in English-language historiography, since 1916. One editor says yes. The other says no.

It is now proposed that the mention of English-language historiography be deleted, and that a statement be added that the battle has been controversial since 1916 over its necessity, significance, and effect. That sounds, to the moderator, who hasn't read the historiography, like a compromise. Will the editors agree to: "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect"?

Third Opinion has been mentioned. The Third Opinion procedure is not applicable after moderated dispute resolution begins, but the opinions of other editors are welcome.

We now have at least three options. First, if the editors agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language, that becomes the language of the lede. Second, an RFC can be published. Third, I can do a General Close. I am optimistic that the third option will not be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Keith-264
"The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" This is the minimum I will accept.Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Thomask0
I agree to the mention of the controversy, without reference to the English language. Thomask0 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Eighth statement by User:Rjensen
Yes, I can agree with "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in English-language writing, over its necessity, significance and effect" Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by volunteer moderator
In the absence of agreement as to whether "especially in English-language writing" should be included in the sentence about the controversy over the battle, I have opened a Request for Comments at the article talk page. Please provide your arguments in favor of or against inclusion of the phrase as the rationale for your Support or Oppose !votes. (I wasn't able to provide those arguments. I am not an expert on the historiography of World War One.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Keith-264
Even a brief acquaintance with the non-English-language writing about the battle where passages have been translated or second-hand commentary has been written by the likes of Hew Strachan Chichele Professor of the History of War who even uses the term "monoglots", Sheldon (a German speaker), Sheffield etc, demonstrates that the controversy about the battle is peculiarly English. Ignoring this basic fact when it hangs over English-language-writing like a shroud, is mistaken and will add to the deterioration in the quality of the article. I notice that the passage has already been edited and some of the sense lost. Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Thomask0
Oppose: The caveat that the historiographical controversy (over necessity etc.) exists "especially in English-language writing", while not necessarily false, is itself controversial. Even in the context of this dispute, sources have been offered to back both positions in what is effectively a "controversy over the controversy". And so if the "English-language" claim over the historiographical controversy is mentioned, then accuracy would demand we also mention that the "English-language" claim is itself controversial. In other words, we'd need something like the following:


 * "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect. It is claimed by some commentators [citations] that the controversy exists especially in English-language writings, however that claim itself is controversial [counter citations]."

That serves to underline the fact that the "English-language" claim is not a claim about the Battle of the Somme (e.g. "Lots of men died"). It is not even a claim about a claim about the Battle (e.g. "With respect to the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over necessity, significance and effect"). It is, instead, a claim about a claim about a claim about the Battle ("With respect to the controversy over necessity, significance and effect of the fact that lots of men died, there is controversy over the significance of the lack of English translations of French and German documents"). Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, that is clearly too detailed a point, on too minor and editorially controversial an issue, to merit inclusion in the lede. If it needs to appear, then it (and the controversy around it) can certainly do so elsewhere in the Article. I would not object, however, to inclusion in the lede of the non-controversial, more significant, and clear-cut assertion that the necessity etc of the battle has been and remains controversial. The previously proposed wording is an example of what I would support:


 * "The battle has been controversial since 1916, over its necessity, significance and effect".

Thomask0 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: Just to pre-empt a possible misconception. It is of course conceivable that the bulk of commentary on the Somme has indeed been produced in English, given the dominance of that language in general. And so in that case it may literally be the case that the historiographical controversy exists "especially in English-language writing", but only in the way that commentary on anything in which the UK or US have a prominent role will stand a good chance of existing "especially in English-language writing". If that were all that were at stake then while the "English-language writing" caveat may be true, it would be trivial and unnecessary. It would be like saying "The battle has been controversial since 1916, especially in writing by authors over the age of 18, over its necessity, significance and effect." But of course that is not the point at stake here. This specific aspect of the dispute is really whether the overall historiographical controversy (over necessity etc) is in some way represented differently by British commentators when compared against their French/German counterparts specifically because those of the former who can read only English are unable to get access to certain non-English writings. My position is that that assertion, however stated, is too controversial and too minor to go into the article's lede. Thomask0 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ninth statement by User:Rjensen
The German and French authors do not say much one way or the other about the British battle. Somme did not have a major impact on the psychology of Germans or the French (or the Americans). The battle was a major psychological shock to the British (and to the Australians and Canadians) from which the civilians never wavered--it was and is today a central element in their interpretation of the horrors of the war. The revisionists argue the generals did the best they could and therefore are not donkeys. That argument has not resonated very well with public. The idea that the British generals in 1916 2 years into the war still did not understand modern warfare is a shocking admission by Revisionist historians; add to it the notion that the same generals failed to use their new gained knowledge for two more years, and the British generals look pretty stupid. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by volunteer moderator
An RFC is in progress as to the qualifying phrase about the language of historiography. We do not need to discuss that issue further on this board. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other issues about this article that need discussion, or should I close the dispute resolution as about to be resolved by the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Keith-264 - Since the article is not protected at this time, you can revert the edit (the removal of a flag), but use an appropriate edit summary and discuss on the article talk page. If the editor who removed the flag wants to discuss, we can add this to the topics for moderated discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Tenth statement by User:Keith-264
OK but User:Omnisome‎ has committed what looks like a nuisance edit, can we remove it or do we go through you? Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator
I am closing this thread as pending resolution by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jugdev#Manual of Style
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User:Jugdev has beenmaking edits to Big data that a couple of editors feel are non-encyclopedic in tone. We've tried to discuss this with them, but they just respond by saying "thank you, it looks to me like my changes meet the guidelines" and reverting our edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User:Rui_Gabriel_Correia opened a discussion on Talk:Big data prior to reverting the changes; Jugdev did not reply there, but just reverted Gabriel's fix. Gabriel then opened a discussion on Jugdev's talk page (linked above), which I joined in on. We have both tried (I hope!) to politely and helpfully point out the issues with Jugdev's edits, but Jugdev simply says they think their changes are fine and in keeping with WP policy, and re-reverts our changes. (sample)

How do you think we can help?

I hope that a third editor saying the changes aren't in WP style will be enough to convince JugDev to stop editing the page. Failing that, if the third person reverts the changes and Jugdev re-reverts, that may be enough to justify administrative action (though I hope that won't be necessary).

Summary of dispute by Jugdev
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rui_Gabriel_Correia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

User talk:Jugdev#Manual of Style discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The problem started like this: I expanded the Ahmad Sanjar article a bit by adding some information - some of it stated that he was the longest reigning Muslim ruler until the Mongol invasions (the information was sourced). However, Qara xan then suddenly changed the sourced information by writing that Al-Mustansir Billah was the longest reigning ruler. But that is impossible, since according to this source, Sanjar ruled from 1097 until 1157/8 (which i added in the article but Qara xan removed it for no reason). Al-Mustansir Billah ruled from 1036 to 1094. Now, let's do some simple math; That means that Sanjar ruled in 60/1 years, while Al-Mustansir Billah ruled only in 58 years.

However, this guy simply won't accept such a simple fact and keeps denying the truth/simple fact and thinks that Britannica is a reliable source. Even if he added a reliable source, it would make no difference since it is clearly clear that Ahmad Sanjar ruled longer if we do some simple math.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but what can i do when he denies such a simple fact and keeps reverting me?

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong (read the everything i have written then you will understand what i mean), since he ignores what i say, so i think it would be good if someone else also did that, since it seems that no baths an eye on the edits he have made and the things he have said lately.

Summary of dispute by Qara xan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you for notifying me about that :). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Far-right politics
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

A user by the name of The Four Deuces has constantly reverted edits by multiple users that remove connections between "Far-right" and nazism/genocide. I have brought the issue up in the talk page (As have many others), but the same person has been reverting the edits. Clearly, when most people think of "far-right", they think of people like Rush Limbaugh or Ted Cruz. Whether you like them or the idea of "Far-right", I'm sure you agree that its not connected to nazism or genocide. If one checks the "far-left" page on Wikipedia, there aren't any connections with Communism or genocide, because that would constitute a different section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posting a request for page protection.

How do you think we can help?

Think of the topic in an unbiased manner, and realize that far-right isn't synonymous with genocide, but more with a stronger right-wing.

Summary of dispute by The_Four_Deuces
DRN removed sourced material because he disagreed with it and has presented his personal definition of far right but provided no sources. His position is inconsistent with content policies for reliable sources and no original research.

Indeed a number of editors subscribe to a fringe view that the nazis were far left, and the discussion comes up periodically in this article and many others.

TFD (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alumnum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Article_editor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bryonmorrigan
Frankly, this is absurd, and certainly unworthy of the DRN, especially when he just started talking about it on the talk page. RedFlorist is upset that all of the RS goes against his personal, un-cited, opinions, and TFD is 100% correct. (And frankly, TFD and I rarely find ourselves in agreement, so that's saying something.) "Far Right" has a specific scholarly definition, just as does "Radical Right". For example, my personal opinion is that "Radical Right" is an oxymoron, but that opinion is of no consequence on WP, because the term has an established scholarly definition, backed up by sufficient RS. I expect that we'll see RedFlorist posting some quotations from Goldberg and Hayek before this is over, as this has all the hallmarks of a Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck conspiracy rage-edit. -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd Note by Redflorist
I have come to agreement with The Four Deuces and Bryonmorrigan in that far-right does encompass the material in question, as that is the definition one would find of it online. Although I do not agree with the content, it is in line with WP standards and therefore should remain. I'll leave this dispute up to be archived, or just removed by a moderator or volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redflorist (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production
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

Battlestar Galactica 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by the numerous legitimate citations, editors have employed increasingly desperate measures to prevent the article reflecting that. They have employed Original Research, disputed straight forward citations and after extensive discussion refuse to be guided to neutrality and revert any edit that includes citations confirming the show was a UK-US international production. One editor has then taken upon themselves to follow my edits around wikipedia onto another Anglo-American TV co-production and started reverting long-standing consensual articles there also.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Everything, talk history discussion, users page discussion and 3rd party discussion including admin. I agreed with admin to come to DR to resolve this nasty situation before it becomes even worse. I admit to stupidly losing my temper and committed along with other editors 3RR at one point, luckily admin agreed I was working towards article neutrality rather than being NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that DRN moderators can review the evidence and determine a solution as discussion is getting nowhere, I wish the article to reflect the UK's contribution as reflected by the citations, not NOR and that's it. Not a lot seemingly but one impossible to resolve without moderation it seems. I would also like to get a policy ruling at some point on international co productions and how they are presented on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by DrMargi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Drovethrughosts
Your intention of what exactly you want in the article is still very unclear, which makes this difficult to resolve. When you added the co-production content to the article, I did not disagree, I simply tweaked it for the better. You talk about NPOV, but you continually tried to push Sky1 and the UK's involvement as if it were more than the main series producer, Universal Television, by always placing their names first, giving the impression of more importance, which is false. As long as you're fine with this version of the article (which mentions the co-production, but in factual manner), we should be good. Other notes: the UK is not country of origin with the U.S. (though I'm still uncertain if you're still fighting for this), because the UK or Sky1 holds no copyright to this series in any way–the copyright holder to BSG is Universal, which I've said several times to you, but you never acknowledge this piece of information in the previous discussions. As for the lead, the only way for it to read "is a co-production television series" (or whatever wording you want) would be if the Sky1's involvement was for the entire series run, but it wasn't (it was one season out of four). Anything else would be giving more credit where it isn't due. On a personal note, I'm going on vacation for a week in two days, so I don't plan on any further involvement with this. I've said everything I've had to say on subject, all my comments can be read at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say consensuses has been reached just yet, because I am not in favor of it saying co-production in very first sentence. The series is of American origin, thus that's how it should be described. It can be in a separate sentence like I how I had originally, which would read something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". The UK is listed in the infobox under "first show in" and Sky1 could be added as a producer with the seasons it produced in parentheses; however, the UK does belong in country of origin. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twobells
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I must say that you Drovethrughosts have been the more reasonable editor and that it is my belief we can work together. Actually what I want is simple and always has been, the attempted sophistry has never come from my side, essentially it is extremely straight forward, that like all other wiki co-production tv shows the info-box and lede reflect the contribution, that's it, nothing confusing about that and never has been. The issue isn't about copyright, the issue is about international co productions, in that production companies produce a tv show together as reflected by the citations and the info-box which is standard wiki practice on all international co-production TV shows. I have never wanted to push one network over another, all I've ever wanted is the article to reflect the citations, that BSG 2004 originally was a Anglo-American co production. Yes, the lede should read 'co-production' not mash-up country abbreviations like 'UK-US' and have UK, US in the info-box (that is purely alphabetical not pov!) However, I am more than happy for the info box to read 'US' first if thats the issue? Twobells (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * note, it looks like consensus has been reached with one editor at this very late stage, it is my hope that Drmargi can agree, resolving the issue. Twobells (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Coordinator's comments: Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Please refrain from discussing the case until such time as if and when a volunteer chooses to accept the case and opens it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteer's comments
Hello, I'm pcfan500. I accept this case. pcfan 500  talk &#124; my contribs  10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the evidence, I think that maybe User:Twobells's addition of the fact that the show was cancelled should be referenced with a reliable source. Don't re-add it until you have a reliable resource. References are required on Wikipedia. pcfan 500  talk &#124; my contribs  10:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any POV pushing occurred, just some unsourced edits. I agree with Twobell's idea of putting the TV studios in alphabetical order (this improves the flow).

Suggestions

 * Twobells, you keep saying that the show was cancelled. Please give a source. Don't re do the edit. Just reply with the source and I will tell you if it's fine.
 * It doesn't matter with putting whichever TV names first. It does not really give an impression of importance or violate NPOV.
 * Drmargi, you haven't given a summary of the dispute; please do so. Thanks.
 * Please reply here with suggestions or what you think about these. Remember that dispute resolution is about compromise. pcfan 500   talk &#124; my contribs  14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The show being cancelled or ending is not a problem, I have no idea where that idea came from or how you viewed that as an issue, as it was never mentioned here. Production companies are usually listed per credit order, like everyone else in the infobox (cast, producers, etc.); thus should be consistent. And yes, being listed above another does imply more importance, that's why we list actors per their billing order and not alphabetical. I feel my comprise above if the best way to go, as it adds what Twobells wants, but presents it in the most factual way possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, User:Drovethrughosts, yes, we will list them per billing order, as is common with movies. We wont be adding the fact that the show is cancelled unless we have a source (WP:No original research). Reply back if you agree. And I would like User:Twobells to respond as I haven't heard from this user regarding the possible compromises.

Given the above, I have contacted TransporterMan and requested he review the comments and competence of the volunteer for this case. Pcfan500 is an editor of less than three months' experience, far too soon to be handling a case such as this, which should have been declined. His apparent inability to understand the nature of the issue at hand, much less to see that Twobells has both misstated consensus and has filed this case in an attempt to get around consensus on the article, both of which are sufficient cause to close the case, is extremely troubling. Moreover he appears unaware of the practices regarding discussion of editors v. the subject, and has done nothing to remove Twobells' personal attacks in the filing. Finally, he/she appears to think they can simply issue mandates as to what will be done, not act as a mediator indicates he/she is not competent to handle this case. I will not participate in this discussion under the current conditions, nor will I be bound by any outcome resulting from it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I will leave this case and I will gain more experience before coming back, OK? pcfan 500  talk &#124; my contribs  01:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Coordinator's note: I note the volunteer's withdrawal and will seek a new volunteer. Please discontinue all further discussion (except at the article talk page) until if and when a new volunteer takes the case. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) PS: If Drmargi intends to participate here, it would encourage a replacement volunteer to take the case if s/he would make a summary in the space provided above. I did not mean to exclude that by asking for discussion to cease. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by replacement moderator
I will be taking over moderation of this dispute. I have no particular knowledge of this show; it is the job of the participants to inform me about the show and the issues. I have no special authority or power, and cannot resolve the dispute, but have the job of trying to help the participants resolve the dispute. (If you want the moderator to take "your side", dispute resolution does not work that way.) I will insist that participants discuss content and not other contributors, and that participants be civil and concise. Without those preconditions, this case cannot be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have some opening questions. I understand that there is a dispute about whether the show should be listed as US, or as US-UK. Would each participant please state what their opinion is, and why they hold that opinion? It appears that there may be an issue about whether the show was cancelled. Is there an issue? If so, will each participant please state what their position is?

Are there any other issues that require moderated discussion?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Twobells
Thanks for your help Robert.

Primary 3rd party, secondary, and tertiary sources all confirm that BSG 2004 was a US-UK co-production, that the country of origin is the US and UK as reflected by the source material, Sky1 co-produced season 1, season 4 and the spin-off 'Razor'. I include the citations here:

References

I wish the article to read like this:

''Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is (I agree with Drovthrughosts re WP:TVLEAD) a military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise. The show was developed by Ronald D. Moore and co-produced by NBC-Universal TV and Sky1 as a re-imagining of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica television series created by Glen A. Larson.''

'UK' would be added to the info box after 'US' and Drovethrughosts and I will pen a section on 'Production', laying out the details of the production showing the contribution made by each network as (very unusually) the article has no 'Production' section. Also, while there is a single mention of Sky1 being the first country to broadcast the show (part of the co-production agreement) there is no reference anywhere in the article referring to Sky1 and the networks production contribution. Unfortunately, the disagreement came about when WP:NOR was employed referring to entirely un-sourced 'copyright' and 'Berne Convention' claims suggesting that the show was purely an 'American' production while numerous external sources and other articles exist state the show was an international co-production. Subsequently, in the article only the 'USA' is mentioned as 'country of origin' and any sources disproving that have been reverted. However, standard policy dictates that the 'country of origin' is the country that produces the show, in the case of international co-productions both countries are listed, usually in the info-box and the word 'co-production' is used in the first sentence leaving out either country; however, on some articles either 'Anglo-American' or 'UK-US' are used (the 'UK' comes before the 'S' alphabetically and is not bias) and I have absolutely no issue with 'US' being listed first. , Until we have consensus I suggest adding WP:CONLIMITED and POV check to the article and NPOV-section after the word 'American' to ensure article neutrality, hopefully the tags will be removed once the article is improved.

Also, somehow an editor has made the assumption in good faith that there is a question over the show being cancelled, I have no issue with that either way, as far as I know the show came to it's conclusion due to cost and was wound up.

In closing, unfortunately the discussion on the article talk page has moved from achieving consensus to Tendentious Editing. In that 'One who deletes the cited additions of others (See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) Editors delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.' ''There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from an editor before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.'' Twobells (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Drmargi
Some of us are working gobs, and can't hang out on Wikipedia all day. I've just seen this for the first time, and have not been given an opportunity to weigh in, nor will I have time until quite late this evening Pacific time. I find it inappropriate that we're moving on to round two and declaring agreement before I've even had a chance to read, much less respond to what's been posted. I request the opportunity to do so, particularly given the tiny window of time that's passed since the other two editors posted, before any agreement on anything is determined. --Drmargi (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement:

There are two related issues:


 * The question of the origins of Battlestar Galactica (BSG) for the purposes of referring to the show in narrative.
 * The question of the country of origin for purposes of identification in the infobox.

There is long-standing, stable consensus of some years that BSG is an American show produced by Universal Television (now known as NBC Universal) for the USA network (mini-series) and SciFi (SyFy) channel (both owned by NBC) on American television. Its first season included some limited financial participation by the British network Sky1 in exchange for right of first broadcast of the first season of episodes, after which Sky1 had syndication rights, as did Space in Canada and a sizable number of other channels world-wide. The recent attempt to represent the show's five seasons as an international co-production based on Sky1 having made up the difference between the funding Universal is ready to provide and what the producers needed to produce the first season (and only the first season) of the show the way they wanted (I have a source for this but have to find it online) entirely mis-represents the origins of the show. BSG is an American television show whose first season was produced with the participation of Sky1, which can be, and has been, noted in the lede of the article. Its country of origins, as Drovethrughosts has detailed below, is the United States of America. That is noted in the credits of each episode, and the infobox should identify the country of origin as the U.S. and only the U.S. per long-standing consensus. There is no foundation for change, and characterization of the five-season series as an international co-production based on Sky's limited funding of the first season is both inaccurate and misleading, grossly overstating the the short term, limited involvement of Sky1. Identifying the UK as the country of origins (much less use of UK-US on the specious ground of it being in alphabetical order) is wrong. Period.

The effort to make these changes has been presented as adding some sort of equity or balance to the article, and to somehow remove POV editing is absurd. In fact, the opposite is true. The filing editor has attempted this kind of change in at least three other articles, with consensus clearly in opposition each time, and seems to be interested in using these articles to press a specific agenda. BSG is not an Anglo-American show; it is an American show with some short-term, limited term participation of Sky1 which should be entirely addressed in narrative using language indicating show was produced with the participation of or in association with Sky1 (followed by a parenthetic note regarding it being limited to season 1) is acceptable. The proposed language, removing mention of BSG as an American show is not acceptable, nor is any reference to the UK in the infobox.

There is precedent for handling BSG in this way. There are a sizable number of British television programs produced by ITV or the BBC in collaboration with the US network PBS for the Masterpiece anthology series, with WGBH's (the station which produces Masterpiece) Rebecca Eaton listed as an executive producer; see for example Downton Abbey with ITV and The Paradise with the BBC. PBS and Eaton are identified as a producing network and an executive producer in the credits of each season, a far more comprehensive role than that of Sky1 in the production of BSG. In the articles for these shows, each is described as a a British series produced in collaboration with PBS, Eaton is listed as an executive producer in the infobox and the country of origin is the UK. In each of these shows, the involvement of PBS is far more significant and is for the entire run of the series (in her book, Eaton describes the process by which PBS was approached by ITV as a potential co-producer of Downton Abbey), yet the shows are still described as British since the primary production company, Carnival for ITV in the case of Downton, is located in the UK, and is physically responsible for the production. This accurately and proportionally represents the participation of PBS with no POV pushing. In the case of BSG, NBC Universal and David Eik's production company, both incorporated in the U.S. are responsible for the physical production of BSG, and per MOS-TV, BSG is an American show, with a country of origin the U.S. and only the U.S.

We are here because one editor and only one editor wishes to push the POV that any limited participation by a British entity makes the show an international co-production, and the country of origin UK-US, a proposition for which there has been no support by other editors.

The present/past tense is a minor issue, limited to pointy editing. We use literary present tense to refer to shows that have been canceled, an issue that is not disputed, so the MOS resolves that problem.

As a side note: In the run-up to this filing and in the days since, I have been subjected to a number of personal insults, mischaracterization of my motives, and general assumption of bad faith by one participant. I request that the moderator be very clear that the level of abusive editing by this participant is not acceptable here. I will only be party to, and thereby respect the outcomes of this process, if all parties remain civil and refrain from the kind of sweeping bad-faith editing seen in the last several weeks. If that cannot be accomplished, I will contact the two administrators who levied recent blocks and request further such action.

I also wish to reiterate my dismay that the moderator, for whom I otherwise have great respect, moved ahead to what he terms "round two" in a matter of a couple of hours, before I was given an opportunity to participate in this round of comments. As I noted above, which I stopped to do when I was taking a brief break at work, some of us work; I am a professional, and I work long, demanding days with irregular hours (I worked 12 hours today), and that must be respected in this process. I should not be excluded because of the time zone in which I work, and the time demands of my job, but rather should have my status as a volunteer with finite time to respond respected. I request this statement be considered in the notes below, before I make any statement in what he terms "round two". --Drmargi (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Drovethrughosts
That new lead you wrote is fine, however, it should read "is", not "was" per, WP:TVLEAD (which I've linked you to and told you about several times). I'd rather omit "co-production" or US/UK is the opening, as I've said several times: Sky1 only co-produced a single season; if they co-produced the entire series alongside Universal, I'd be 100% fine with it saying that (because it would be factual), but that is not the case with this series. It should be noted what season(s) Sky1 produced in the lead, otherwise, it gives the impression it produced the entire series, which is false and definitely not a neutral POV. The UK is already in the infobox under "first shown in", they are not country of origin because the series did not originate there, it originated in the U.S. and Universal holds the copyright to the series per the end credits and the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under), which literally defines "country of origin" as country of first publication (not to be confused with air date) which is the U.S. (again, per the series end credits). Anything else is OR unless you can provide a source that specifically states otherwise; the sources you provide say nothing of this, so taking away that co-production = country of original is WP:SYNTH. In all the many years I've edited TV series article, I've never seen a TV series article state "is a co-production television series", the country of origin is always used to describe it in the lead. Or, point to a guideline saying otherwise. My preferred version of the lead would basically be what it is now, but just adding a sentence about the production companies, including Sky1's co-production of the first season. And infobox additions would be Sky to the production companies with the season(s) they produced in parenthesis. Can we please just end this headache... Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is a response to what Twobells added to his original comment: I'm sorry, but the series end credits themselves and copyright laws are not "unsourced". You place things in quotes like I'm making them up, do you not know what the Berne Convention is? I will supply you with the link yet again:. It's annoying to have to constantly repeat things over and over, but I understand this is for DNR, so here we go. "Country of origin" is defined by the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under, per the series end credit) as "The country of origin shall be considered to be, in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country", which is the U.S. as the credits specifically state "Country of first publication: United States of America" and giving sole copyright attribution to Universal. That is as official as you can get and any external sources by some journalist do not trump something such as official as that. Again, it is WP:SYNTH to attribute limited funding as country of origin, because those sources do not specifically state anything regarding that. Drmargi, above, gives a perfect example regarding Downtown Abbey which is produced by Carnival Films in association with Masterpiece Theatre (PBS), but is of course only listed as British (which I would never argue to be American in any way); because it originates from the UK.

Second statement by replacement moderator
Okay. First, we are in agreement that the lede will refer to the show in the present tense. Second, please be concise. Please break up statements into paragraphs separated by blank lines so that the moderator can tell what is proposed text and what is rationale.

Do not even suggest the addition of tags to the show. The purpose of this dispute resolution is, among other things, to avoid tags.

Would each party please state what their position is about the national production status of the show, and, in a separate paragraph, what their reasoning is?

Is there an issue about cancellation of the show?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Drmargi
As noted above, the show is produced by (NBC, Burbank, CA/New York, NY, USA) Universal (Universal City, CA, USA) for the SciFi/SyFy network (US, owned by NBC). First country of publication: United States. Do we have a theme emerging here? Sky1 (British) involvement? Limited funding of season one. That's it. The whole haza-gaza. How, by any measure, does that make BSG an international co-production? PBS/WGBH for Masterpiece puts more and more comprehensive financial and human resources, including an executive producer, into Downton Abbey and is identified as British with a country of origin (first country of publication) as the United Kingdom. Case closed. Over and out.

This international co-production malarkey is POV-pushing and clear-cut pointy editing in service of an agenda by an disruptive editor. Period. Not of it belongs in the article. We can describe Sky's role in the production of season 1 (I want to see a source for the others that is reliable, not some inaccessible British academician's interpretation of what Sky's role was in S4, since the credits don't bear it out), but that's as far as it goes. There's no wiggle room here to serve personal agendas by misrepresenting the nature and/or scope of Sky1's role in the production of BSG. --Drmargi (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Drovethrughosts
What do you mean by "tags"?

The opening sentence of the lede would remain the same: Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is an American military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise.

Rationale: "American" because it's the country of origin, and that is how works are described. Not "Anglo-American" or "UK-US" because that is not accurate as the series was not equally produced between the two countries.

A sentence could be added to the lede regarding production companies, saying something like: The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season. A possible following sentence could state the series debuted in the UK first, which could be clarified because of Sky's co-production deal of the first season (with a citation).

Rationale: Some of this content is missing from the lede, such as the actual series premiere date (it just mentions the miniseries), and all of this info is factual. It mentions it debuted in the UK first in the Broadcast and release section, but never clarifies why it did, which is needed, as anyone would think "why would an American series debut in the UK first?".

More info regarding Sky's co-production is welcome to the article, as it's not mentioned, but needs to remain factual and NPOV (as in, not placing Sky1 in front or above Universal).

Cancellation? I seriously have no idea where pcfann500 got that from. It was never a topic of discussion here or on the talk page. The series ended, maybe the article could have more info about that, but, it's not a topic of discussion regarding this DNR. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by replacement moderator
When I said not to suggest the addition of tags, I meant not to suggest that the article have tags such as the neutrality tag or the cleanup tag attached. An editor had written: Until we have consensus I suggest adding WP:CONLIMITED and POV check to the article and NPOV-section after the word 'American' to ensure article neutrality, hopefully the tags will be removed once the article is improved. The purpose of this discussion is, in part, to have the article be tag-free.

Will any editors who have not suggested what the language about national production in the lede should be please provide their versions of the proposed text? (If you already have proposed your language, that is satisfactory.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Drmargi
Can we please close this? Drovethrughosts and I have no issue with the article as it was before all this started, and Twobells has abandoned this filing. Let's call it done, and move on. --Drmargi (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fourth statement by replacement moderator
I am closing this thread as resolved per agreement between User:Drmargi and User:Drovethrughosts and abandonment by User:Twobells. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Survivor 30
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This is an effort to have a consistent format in listing the castaways. One of the names "Jenn" is deliberately abbreviated. When it was corrected, the correct was reverted. An IP argues with Gloss on its own talk page. Both Katinin and Gloss have insisted that the only CBS is allowed and no other source will be accepted. Check some lists on CBS it appear even those are inconsistent. The purpose of this is to reach an agreement as to with format should be used. The preferred version is First "Nickname" Last as opposed to listing only the nicknames.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The IPs attempted to use the full name, and one IP argued with Gloss on his talk page as mentioned above.

How do you think we can help?

It's best to discuss which is the best format and come to a conclusion every can agree with.

Summary of dispute by Gloss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Katanin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The precedent for Survivor articles regarding nicknames is that if CBS—the show's broadcaster—lists a castaway as First "Nickname" Last, e.g. Latasha "Tasha" Fox from Survivor: Cagayan, it is listed here as such. However, it is only used when it is done so by CBS, as the article refers to the castaway in the context of the program; all official CBS material lists her as Jenn Brown, not Jennifer "Jenn" Brown. The preferred version is not necessarily First "Nickname" Last, but whatever CBS is using; the main exceptions are when CBS lists a castaway with no nickname and one is developed in-show and then used in confessions, as with James "Rocky" Reid from Survivor: Fiji, but that is not the case here. As CBS is the network that airs Survivor, it is the most official source, and the names provided to CBS by the castaways reflect their preferred name at the time of filming, and establishes a firm precedent that reflects the content of the program. - Katanin (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 108.6.38.122
Take a look at this IP's talk page. Gloss argued that only one source (CBS) will be accepted. I talked about it and I agree that we should come up with a format that is consistent and everyone can agree with without edit warring. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Survivor 30, User talk:108.6.38.122 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both and  have been notified.  108.6.38.122 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Khatumo State#SSC_clans
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Users Middayexpress & Acidsnow are refusing to acknowledge a large clan that reside in the disputed Sool & Sanaag regions of Somalia. They keep on running on circles with very unreliable & parastrian sources. I gave high quality sources that balances the article but they keep on insisting it's not true. The Isaaq clan lives on the western portion of Sanaag region(including the largest and main city Erigavo & third largest city Eeel Afwayne), while the Darood live on the eastern side. But for years they claimed the whole region is "primarily inhabited" by the Darood which is wrong. I ask anyone to mediate between us and examine the given sources. Sanaag is a majority Isaaq and Aynabo district in Sool is also majority Isaaq.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried on the talk page, but they got me blocked over another dispute.

How do you think we can help?

It's my first time to ask for a resolution so I don't know what to expect.

You said you can't force any user to do anything, but I am positive you'll do something.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not sure what this is about, actually. There haven't been any edits on the article's talk page for several months, until this ip's out-of-the-blue, largely incoherent rant today. Judging by the ip's remark that "I hope your happy after blocking me", he/she is also apparently a blocked user; likely Reer Woqooyi. Middayexpress (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Acisdsnow
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Khatumo State#SSC_clans discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I did notify both users on their talk pages just after I wrote the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.102.81 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middayexpress#Notify

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AcidSnow#Notify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.102.81 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, didn't spot the typo above in AcidSnow's username and could see no notification. SPACKlick (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Should we proceed to the thread/talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.109.124 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can't or have some sort of a relationship with either of the users, It would be better if we waited 4 another volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.109.124 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am a DRN volunteer who is not involved with any of the three stated parties. The large variation in IP addresses on the talk page suggests that it may be the case that other parties exist. Also it seems that Gyrofrog recently took an interest in the clans of Khatumo. I am not opening discussion (at least not at this time until the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to add their own summaries of the dispute). --Bejnar (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, please take into consideration that I am the previous owner of the IP 217.164.179.36 I happened to upgrade my internet connection recently.86.99.106.236 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the three participants User:AcidSnow has not submitted a summary despite being notified 5 days ago. DRN is voluntary and there is no obligation to participate. Furthermore no DRN volunteer has accepted this case. And lastly, the comment cited by MiddayExpress indicates that the filing IP has referred to themselves as a blocked user. So the filing party appears to be a sock of a blocked user. Unless things are cleared up very soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * User_talk:Obi2canibe additional discussion
 * User_talk:Obi2canibe additional discussion
 * User_talk:Obi2canibe additional discussion

The lead of Northern Province, Sri Lanka stated that it was known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country and provided a RS. This was removed by 4frans4 without explanation. After a couple reverts I re-inserted the content with several additional RS. In the mean time a discussion has been ongoing on my talk page in which I have explained why the content should be kept but 4frans4 refuses to accept that his removal is against Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on my talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree. A third party editor has tried to reword the content to make it acceptable to 4frans4 but he has reverted this as well.

How do you think we can help?

Confirm the content complies with Wikipedia policies and that 4frans4 is not justified in his removal.

Summary of dispute by 4frans4
He obi2canibe wants to include the phrase that the Northern Province of Sri Lanka is known as the tamil country of Sri Lanka, apparently due to the large number of Tamil demographics presence in the area. Although it may be the case, in an official capacity from the Sri Lankan government or even from a provincial council capacity. The Northern Province isn't named as the Tamil Country. With regards to this Obi2canibe's reason if Northern Province is Tamil Country due to large presence of Tamil People, is Uva Province the country of Sinhalese? Is Eastern Province the country of Muslims. Plus by naming a single province as certain ethnicities' country isn't it the root cause of 3 decade Sri Lankan Civil War? For a tamil separate state? Just because a large number of an ethnicity's presence doesn't justify the cause to name a certain state, region or province as it's country unless it is defined in an official capacity. : is Tamil Presence in Tamil Nadu justify to call Tamil Nadu as Tamil country of India? : is Malayalam Presence in Kerala justify to call Kerala as Malayalam country of India? : is Assamese presence in Assam justify to call Assam as Assamese country of India? I took India as an example due to the close resemblance of this case between India and Sri Lanka. Finally Obi2canibe recognize himself as a Tamil Eelam sympathizer. Tamil Eelam peoples' sole purpose was to create a separate tamil state in Northern Area of Sri Lanka, in which their dream was crushed by the May of 2009. Naming the province as Tamil country also hurt the reconciliation effort being carried out in Sri Lanka. 4keven4 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by UMDP
Obi2canibe has confused things. There are many provinces or areas that are referred as "countries" in Sri Lanka like "Up Country" but there is no such thing as the "Tamil country" in Sri Lanka. Even the sources he posted doesn't explain anything and doesn't give any direct meaning. It looks like they were written in a figurative sense. While the Northern province has a large Tamil majority it is never called as the "Tamil country" officially and even if people call it as the "Tamil country" unofficially there are no reliable sources to prove it .UMDP (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka discussion
I'm now looking into this matter. I will report back in half an hour or so, once I'm up to speed. Please keep discussion to a minimum in the meantime. SPACKlick (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I can see that this has been quite a short back and forth with only little discussion. The dispute seems to involve the claim that there are RS that refer to part of Sri Lanka as "Tamil Country". Whether that place is the same as "Northern Province" and how to feature any of that in the article. I think you could resolve this if we try to keep the animosity to a minimum. To note the discussion of whether a source is official is a sidetrack. Official isn't the standard Reliable is. So if can post some of the sources would you be willing to discuss if they are reliable and if they refer to the Northern Province ? SPACKlick (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering to mediate . On your first point, yes, the discussion was less than one would normally expect before a DRN is filed but given 4frans4's responses I didn't think we would be able to resolve it between ourselves. Here are some sources you requested:
 * BBC News - "A trip to Sri Lanka's Tamil country. A sudden phone call gave the BBC's Sri Lanka correspondent Charles Haviland rare access to the the war-battered north of the island."
 * The Independent - "We arrived at Colombo airport in the sticky still of night, struggling with the driver to tie a surfboard to the roof of his saloon, before setting off for the north: Tamil country."
 * New York Times - "FOUR years ago this week, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam announced that their struggle for an independent homeland in northern Sri Lanka had “reached its bitter end...Today, great sections of Tamil country are still a scene of devastation."
 * Daily Telegraph - "Immigration Minister Scott Morrison arrived in Sri Lanka yesterday and flew to Tamil country on a military helicopter to meet with the Northern Province governor G.A. Chandrasiri to talk about Australian aid programs."
 * Asia.com: Asia Encounters the Internet (page 184) - "Information out of Jaffna, the heart of Tamil country, and the center of the war zone, and which has no working telephone lines, is passed through word of mouth, ham radio and via the Tamil Tigers' clandestine radio station."
 * Times of India - "Samanth visits an army-built war museum in the former Tiger zone - the heart of Tamil country -- that has signboards only in English and Sinhalese."
 * UNHCR/Documentation Réfugiés - "The source also mentions the town of Vavuniya as an LTTE area of influence. Documentation Réfugiés describes it as the beginning of "Tamil country.""-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, any author, any painter and any mother could call another man donkey. From an insulting manner to giving praise. But regardless, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia like this should emphasis it in our article. As I said, If naming Northern Province as Tamil Country is justifiable due to the large presence of Tamil Population, then what about the states in India? Isn't it the true essence of Tamil Eelam? Isn't it the root cause of Sri Lankan Civil War we experienced for 30 years because some messed up psychopath wanted to create a separate tamil state? I'm not sure if gets the real gist of this discussion. This is not about just a name for the province. This so much more larger than adding the phrase tamil country to the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Please try to see it. This is an issue about ethnicities. An issue about race. An issue about languages. An issue where innocents were blown to bits by suicide bombers. An issue where blood has spilled in my motherland for 30 years. Where the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack was occurred. Where terrorists gunned down pilgrimagers at Anuradhapura massacre. Where terrorists killed hundreds of muslims praying in Kattankudy mosque massacre. Please try to consider the seriousness of this issue, if he """" wants, as a person who is supporting for a separate tamil state in Sri Lanka.

He could add the phrase "Northern Province is known for its large presence of Tamil Population". Thanks I rest my case here. 4keven4 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , While any man could call another man "Donkey" and that would not go in the article. If reliable sources refer to him regularly as "Donkey" that would need to be noted. Just as it is with England's Black Country, irrespective of the amount of coal mining there, it is commonly referred as such.
 * Your suggestion that the page could note that the area contains a large Tamil population is a sidetrack because the page already says that and it isn't relevant to whether the area gets referred to as "Tamil Country". . The sole question here is whether "Reliable Sources" refer to "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country". I would like you to come back and discuss what the sources say.
 * , on the sources specifically I've changed your bullets to numbers for ease of future reference. SPACKlick (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Northern Province is not called the "Tamil Country" but the North and East are sometimes called Tamil Areas of Sri Lanka. I wonder how the authors of the articles got the word "Tamil country". It seems they didn't literally mean it and they kind of compared the North to Tamil Nadu which is the Tamil Country of India and called the Northern Province the "Tamil country of Sri Lanka".UMDP (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating your conclusion as fact does not help build a consensus or an encyclopedia. If you wish to get involved in this dispute please refer to the sources provided or bring new sources to the table. SPACKlick (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was doing my research but I don't think finding sources that explain what authors meant by the "Tamil country" is possible. The Closest thing to a "Tamil country" that covers the Northern province is Tamilakam which not only means "Tamil Country" but includes the North and that is the only answer that has sourcesUMDP (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are joining in the dispute it is worth you adding a short summary of your position to the section added above. I don't think understanding "Why" people call it tamil country is a relevant discussion at this point, if at all, because the question currently is "Whether" people refer to the "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country" in a sufficient Weight of Reliable Sources. Until the answer to that question is agreed the discussion cannot progress. SPACKlick (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If English isn't your first language it is quite understandable that you would believe that the term "country" only means an independent sovereign state. In fact it has other meanings as both country (a country may be..a geographic region associated with sets of...differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics) and country (a set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc) make clear. So it may mean a geographic region associated with a particular people/language/race (e.g Basque Country), occupation (e.g. cowboy country), species (e.g. cattle country) or even a region of a sovereign state (e.g. west country). In the case of "Tamil country" it is the first of these i.e. a region associated with a particular people/language/race. This is what the authors of the sources given above meant by using the term "Tamil country", they were not implying that it is, or was ever, an independent sovereign state.-- obi2canibe talk contr 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the important things to consider in this manner is how controversial this tag "Tamil Country" is, which in turn refers to as Tamil Eelam.

Who this openly supports so. With regards to that, the mediators should be made aware of 's intentions. Mediators should not be fooled, decepted by 's view. Well, it is quite understandable for a person who is in 's place to call the Northern Province the Tamil Country.

With regards to his source articles every single one of those articles has the face of either tabloid, gossip or tourism value. None has any official news value and none of those articles are backed by the Sri Lankan government officials or even the people of Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, calling the northern province as Tamil country is almost as Taboo. Since there are Americans involved in this discussion  let me put it this way. Just because there are many Hispanics and Spanish language being spoken in New Mexico, is it suitable to call the state of New Mexico as the Mexican country of USA. Just because the state of Mississippi has a large proportion African Americans, does it make sense to add the phrase, Mississippi is also known as the Black Country in USA. Please try to see it that way. Tourists, Tamil Eelam sympathizers may call the Northern Province as Tamil Country. But it doesn't alone justify to add the phrase "Northern Province is known as Tamil Country"4keven4 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the Upper country (or Up country, locally known as Uddarata) word uses in modern Sri Lanka. It does not mean that Upper country is a sovereign state. But it (like Rajarata) comes from historical region/kingdom. Likewise, Northern province has historical link as Tamil country too. Also, Unofficial differential can be heard by the words "uddarata peolple" still in Sri Lanka. Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka locally known by Up country Tamils, and it does not mean that they are belonging to difference country. Those who involve in the discussion should stay calm and speak from the reliable facts. Calling "Tamil Eelam sympathizer" seems to divert the discussion or attack the user and this logic can back fire as "Sinhalese sympathizer". It does not bring solution, but dragging further.-- Anton Talk  03:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * please avoid commenting on the motivations of other contributors and focus on their contributions. Whether or not it is taboo to call northern province Tamil Country can be noted in the article but if it is indeed often referred to as tamil country, the article should reflect that. Your counter examples from the USA don't quite work because it's not common to call them that, if several sources referred to new mexico, or one county of it, as hispanic country then the new mexico article should reflect that. Your comments on the sources themselves were.
 * The pieces were tabloid, Gossip or Journalism
 * None of them were made by Sri Lankan Officials
 * None of them were written by Sri Lankans
 * The first of these may speak to the reliability of the source but it could go either way. On the one hand it might make them less editorialy reliable and on the other it does mean they have little political motivation to use a term advocating a specific point of view. The fact that these are not official sources from the government doesn't make a difference but if they are all outside sources it may be worth noting in the article that it is known as Tamil Country only outside Sri Lanka if you can find a source to support that claim.
 * Do you have any response to the above comment from Keven? SPACKlick (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)



Motivations dictate individuals actions. Hitler's intentions were to create a supreme German white race, and he saw romani, jews as inferior so he massacred them. First understand the fact that motivations of an individual do dictate an individual's actions.

Yes in Sri Lankan rural society and in feudalist society up country sinhalese were sometimes referred to as Udarata Sinhalese. Hence up country sinhalese. But in modern sinhalese society we do not refer to them as Udarata sinhalese anymore unless by an uneducated, bigoted conservative person. As you said Northern Province has never been recognised as Tamil Country in a historical context. see [|here] Just so you may not know, did you know in ancient sinhalese, sinhala people used the word "Demala" (Tamil Person) to refer to enemies, someone who is hostile, someone who is an adversory. Why? well because almost all the invaders to Sri Lanka during that time are Tamil Chola Kings. Well even in ancient Khmer it was the same Now should we mention it in an article somewhere in Wikipedia? Well no, because it taboo. : And no, Northern Province doesn't refer to as Tamil Country outside of Sri Lanka unless of course a person who is referring to it as such have no knowledge of Sri Lanka and its People. Like I said, if I could roam the internet I'm pretty sure I may be able to find reasonable sources that refer to Tamil Nadu as Tamil Country and Malaysia as Malay Country. It would be ridiculous now wouldn't it? 4keven4 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * To your question: it wouldn't be ridiculous. If the sources exist showing verifiably that people referred to those places in those ways then it would be warranted to include it on wikipedia.
 * to note: You have several times mentioned that things are taboo. Wikipedia is not censored. If something is taboo in a social context then that in itself might be noteworthy but it is not a reason not to report on the fact itself. However that discussion is several steps down the road.
 * You have been asked several times to comment on the content and reliability of the sources rather than give your opinion. You have not done so. You have been asked several times not to comment on editors. You still persist in doing so. Please engage in the discussion at hand.
 * Whether those sources provided are reliable as defined in wikipedia policy
 * Whether they report that Northern Province is called Tamil Country to any extent (what extent and how to phrase it is a later discussion).
 * Please do so. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No can seriously describe BBC News, The Independent, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times of India or UNHCR as tabloid, gossip, tourism or unreliable. They are unquestionably WP:RS. The sources provided are news reports or feature stories, they are not editorials/opinion pieces and are therefore reliable for sourcing statements of fact (as outlined in WP:NEWSORG). The remaining source (no.5 ) is a book written by Shyam Tekwani, an academic from Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, part of the United States Department of Defense. This is also a reliable source.

As you have stated Wikipedia does not rely government/official sources but on reliable sources and I have provided numerous reliable sources. Nor we do we only rely on sources from the topic's country. As long as they are reliable we can use sources from any nationality.

4frans4 and UMDP have not brought forward any argument based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines which would prevent inclusion of the content. Instead they are repeating the same arguments: the content is not supported by official sources and that articles for other regions with specific ethnic groups don't mention the term "country" (a variation of WP:OSE).-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Source Reliability
Regardless of whether it is BBC, New york times or anything, those papers do publish tabloid articles. You can not argue the fact that those sources are reliable to 100%. Of course you know about UNHCR. Bringing the US and its Allies' agenda to disrupt Sri Lanka's friendship with China and Russia. Why can't amidst all the atrocities at Israel, UNHCR bring a resolution against Israel. Well that's why?. Let's see what the UNHCR and India's position on this march. You'll be amazed as what would happen to the resolution. 's ideology and his positions are important to consider his opinions. Please listen to this, would it be possible to believe if Hitler said that Jews and all other races are equal. Would it be possible to believe if Bin Laden said that, United States and Israel are friends of Islam.4keven4 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss on the subject regarding to local context. This is about Sri Lankan province, not USA or Hitler. BTW, This is just placed "without references". -- Anton Talk  04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly 4frans4 please avoid going off topic, discussing opinions or editors. This dispute can only be resolved by discussing the content and wikipedia policy. Your opinion that the BBC article is tabloid doesn't outweigh their longstanding history of editorial rigor for which they are known on Wikipedia as a reliable source and I recommend you read the linked policy to understand why. Your contributions to the discussion so far make me think it might be worth also reading this essay. Your opinion, my opinion and Obi's opinion don't matter it's only what can be verified through reliable sources that matters by the policy of this encyclopedia. Here is how I would approach the sources provided by Obi2canibe.
 * I would check the date because referring to an area as Tamil Country during the conflict could be challenged as not showing the area is still referred to that way
 * I would check the general reliability of the source, using the reliable sources noticeboard where necessary.
 * I would check precisely what claim is made and in context what that claim means.
 * Below is my analysis of the 7 provided sources.

1)[August 2009] Source is reliable, it's the BBC Travel section. Source makes it clear that there is Tamil Country in Sri Lanka. It implies that the Tamil Country is in the North, but doesn't say where. Does make it clear the "Tamil Country" exists beyond the 2009 end of conflict.

2)[January 2014] Source is reliable, it's the independent Travel section. Makes it clear that there is somewhere referred to as "Tamil Country" in the north of Sri Lanka and that this exists after the 2009 end of the conflict. Indicates Trincomalee is part of Tamil Country.

3)[May 2013] Source is OK not great, it's NY times but the opinion section. Makes it clear that some area of Tamil Country was referred after the 2009 end of conflict no indication of where.

4)[July 2014] Source is reliable, it's the Daily Telegraph News section. Makes it clear that Tamil Country existed as referred after 2009 end of conflict. Implies it is within the area of responsibility of the governor of Northern Province.

5)[Sep 2003] Source is pretty reliable, Published by Routlege. Refers to Jaffna as the heart of Tamil country. It is however discussing prior to the 2009 end of conflict and therefore probably not useful in this context.

6) [Nov 2014] Source is Ok, Times of india book review. Some information comes from the book, some from the reviewer. Refers to an Army Built War museum in the heart of Tamil Country (probably Puthukkudiyiruppu but saying so would be original research).

7) [July 1993] Source is good UN Refugee agency report. Uses a 1992 reference to indicate Vavunis is the beginning of Tamil Country. Probably not relevant due to age.


 * So we can see that there are reliable sources here which do make it clear that some part of Sri Lanka is referred to as Tamil Country, however none of them make it clear where that is. Source 4 is probably the clearest indicator that it refers to at least a part of the Northern Province. While looking into those sources I also found;

8) [May 2014] IBN live, news section in reasonably reliable source. However, in a conciliatory gesture, Rajapaksa today tweeted that he will ask Wigneswaran, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, also known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country, to join his delegation. Which would seem to support the inclusion of the material.

9) [Jan 2015] Salem News, OK source. In fact Tamil country includes both of Sri Lanka's northern coastlines. So not specific on location but gives a general area.

10)[July 2014] Saturday Paper, don't know this source but it quotes Trevor Grant of the Tamil refugee council as saying There’s land theft, military in schools – all designed to change the face of Tamil country. I would dig further into this source if others proved unreliable.


 * In 8) we have the first source that equates the two terms directly. So in light of that analysis could you answer the following question.
 * Do you agree that it can be concluded that at least part of the northern province is verifiably referred to as "Tamil Country" (in reliable sources) per the linked policy? 
 * If you disagree please refer to the policy areas not satisfied by the provided sources. SPACKlick (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No response from 4frans4 in more than 72 hours. What now?-- obi2canibe talk contr 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's been no activity from frans anywhere on wiki in that period. If they're still silent after a week then we'll need to consider our options but for now I'm happy to give them a little time.SPACKlick (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Still the sources doesn't say anything reliably ,Does it include the eastern province where their is a small Tamil majority? does it include parts of provinces close to the Northern province where tamils live?. Its impossible to go ahead with just one word which is used figuratively UMDP (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IBN says clearly that the northern province is known as Tamil Country. What is your policy based reason for objecting to that source or its claims? The more specific you can be the easier it is for other editors to see where you're coming from.SPACKlick (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to ignore the Eastern province. The Tamil Areas are usually jointly referred as the North-East. If any part is called a "tamil country" then it should include the Eastern province as well and the "Wigneswaran, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, also known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country" so . Even the LTTE separatist Tamil ealam map includes the Eastern province so the sources are clearly incomplete. UMDP (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is where a lot of discussions on wiki derail. Your argument there UMDP was based on your opinion or your reading of information you haven't cited. Wikipedia cannot be based on the opinions of its editors it has to rely on published, reliable sources. Your reference to a map of Tamil controlled areas doesn't necessarily negate the claim but why not link to the map so it can be seen by everyone in the discussion. Link what other sources say about "Tamil country" or opinions of that moniker published in reliable sources. SPACKlick (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)


 * the second sources given by Obnicanibe says about North-East not just the North and Trinco is the Capital of the Eastern Province.

The eastern province is included in the "Tamilakam" or the "Tamil Country"

UMDP (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe:  just to draw attention to this post SPACKlick (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We are not here to discuss whether the Eastern Province is known as Tamil country. We are not here to discuss whether the North Eastern Province is/was known as Tamil country. We are not even here to discuss whether the Northern Province is the only region in Sri Lanka (or the world) to be known as Tamil country. We are here to discuss if the Northern Province is known as Tamil country. And to this end numerous reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4frans4 and UMDP have not brought forward any argument based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines which would prevent inclusion of the content. They are just filibustering now.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @Obi2canibe:  I think that some of what we're not here specifically to discuss is relevant though because only one of your sources specifically says the two are synonymous the rest just indicate that Tamil Country is in the North. Also, with only a few sources mentioning the name we would also have to consider if it merits mention in the lede or in another section of the article. Before getting to the second point, how do you respond to the claim that most of your sources refer to some northern/north-eastern area as Tamil Country that is not synonymous with the Northern Province as evidenced by the mention of Trinco which is outside the Northern Province? SPACKlick (talk)


 * Stating that the Northern Province is known as Tamil country does not mean that other parts of Sri Lanka aren't known as Tamil country as well. We are dealing just with Northern Province article. If there are RS stating that the Eastern Province is also known as Tamil country we can add it to that article as well. The two provinces are often grouped together because of their shared culture/history and because between 1988 and 2006 the two provinces were actually merged together as the North Eastern Province.


 * "Northern Province" is a rather formal term and generally it is known as "the north" in everyday language. It's like calling the Republic of Ireland as Ireland or the Republic of China as Taiwan. This is why most of the sources refer to "the north". I have had a look at the sources and most of them mention locations within the Northern Province. Source 1 mentions Our Lady of Madhu/Menik Farm. Source 3, Source 5 and Source 6 mention Jaffna. Source 7 refers to Vavuniya, a border town, as "the beginning of "Tamil country". Source 4, Source 8 and Source 9 refer directly to "Northern Province". Therefore it is clear that they are referring to the "Northern Province" when they talk of "the north".


 * Source 2 talks of the north as being Tamil country but then goes onto discuss Trincomalee which isn't in the Northern Province. We should therefore exclude this source from our discussion. Even after this there are still numerous sources to support the inclusion of the content - many more than Wikipedia policy requires.


 * If you don't think the sources merit inclusion of the content in the lede, I have no objection to it being moved another section, perhaps the end of the History section.-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with it being in the history section either and becuase is no longer here the dispute could be ended . UMDP (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent, we just need SPACKlick's agreement.-- obi2canibe talk contr 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope that process helped and I'm glad agreement was reached. I'll close this discussion now. @4frans4:  If you feel the need to discuss this further, given your current absence from wikipedia, please feel free to bring it up on my talk page. SPACKlick (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

some of obi2canibe's sources just call it the North not the Northern province so it could include the northern parts of the surrounding provinces with a large Tamil population and some sources also speak about the Eastern province. So it would be best to say that "some parts" of the Northern and eastern province are known as the "Tamil country" UMDP (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon B._Hinckley
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"
 * - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"

Dispute overview

The word 'implicate' be changed to 'appear to implicate' or something simpler or something from a secondary source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring notices, talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Change the word implicate entirely with a word from a third party.

Summary of dispute by ARTEST4ECHO
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In a nutshell AndyTheGrump, AsteriskStarSplat, ChristensenMJ and myself all feel that the version as of now, is more NPOV then the version Mormography has attempted over and over again to implement. The issue is if a forged document can "implicate" a person of wrong doing. All of us argue that it cannot so the words, "appeared to" (or something similar) is required to maintain NPOV. Mormography has simply refused to accept the consensus that a "forgery cannot implicate, it can only appear to do so, so this more nuanced wording is better" as stated by AsteriskStarSplat. Ironically I came along well after this discussion happened and a consensus was reached to add "appeared to". I attempted to help  Mormography find a compromise he might like, which he rejected every attempt. Every edit Mormography has made in effect did the same thing, turned a "forged document" into "proof of misconduct". In the end he turned on me. Mormography as editing my words on the talk page in order to make it look like I agreed with him and intentionally misquoted me in an attempt to get Beeblebrox to lift his blocking, all violations of Talk page guidelines.

I feel that this Dispute Resolution was only opened by Mormography as an attempt to WP:HARASS others. The consensus has been reached by 4 editors to 1 editor. Mormography is simply trying to wear down everyone in order for him to get what he wants, and refuses to listen to anyone. He has been warned over and over by Good Olfactory and Beeblebrox (both Admins) that his behavior has been WP:Uncivil, WP:Personal Attacks, and WP:Edit warring. As a result of Mormography's actions, he was blocked from editing (none of us were) and Gordon B. Hinckley was full protected.

I request that this dispute resolution noticeboard be speedily closed as consensus has already been reached and it was only opened in order to harass others.--- ARTEST4ECHO(Talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AsteriskStarSplat
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

[Has declined to participate here, as is his/her right as no one is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)]

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It appears to me that there has quite possibly been something of a breakdown in communication here. While Mormography was earlier insisting contrary to consensus that the article should state that a forgery 'implicated' Joseph Smith in questionable behaviour, his/her latest edit no longer uses the word. Frankly though, given the latest thread on this issue, I'm not entirely sure what Mormography actually wants - with confusingly-worded double negatives intermingled with apparent assertions that contributors (including myself) have reached a consensus regarding wording they have never seen, the threads is a prime example of people talking past each other. I would therefore suggest that rather than discussing imaginary consensus and arguing over who agreed to what, it might be better for all concerned if people just stated what their preferred text was, and on what grounds they supported it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ChristensenMJ
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Good Olfactory
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Mormography
It should be noted that Good Ol’factory is not just a side bar on civility, but rather the original editor of this BRD process. The protect state of the article is the new version as originally proposed by him.

Interesting enough, ARTEST4ECHO and I agreed about the wordiness of this proposed edit (semicolon). Another interesting fact is that ARTEST4ECHO has already proposed that the word implicate be removed altogether, but now appears to desire keeping it. So, as far as I can tell ARTEST4ECHO and I agree with the proposed edit's wordiness and the option of replacing the word implicate. ARTEST4ECHO’s summary of dispute is full of false accusations implicating me in bad faith. Preceding sentence is an indication I that I see no problem with the word implicate and believe the supposed problems with the word are more due to the power of suggestion. However, the word is now tainted (or ‘appears’ to be tainted?) and should be changed. The best solution would be to return to the original and then have the word ‘implicate’ replaced by a something chosen by a third party. ARTEST4ECHO previously suggested this, though not necessarily replacing the word by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon B._Hinckley discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. I just want to make the following comments. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All listed parties have been notified.
 * This noticeboard does not deal with conduct disputes and will not discuss content here. I'm going to remove one comment made above about a party being blocked and ask that there be no further discussion of content.
 * Good Olfactory is probably not a necessary party here, having only dealt with conduct issues at the article talk page. I'm going to go ahead and leave him/her listed, but if he does not participate or does not care to participate it should not prevent this case from moving forward if all or most other parties do participate.


 * Volunteer note 2: It has been raised that there is a consensus here and that the filing editor is arguing against that consensus. The DRN editor who takes the case will make a consensus evaluation and if a clear consensus does exist then the case will be closed (since there is no real dispute in that situation). If consensus is unclear, then the case will proceed. Just FYI, and others may certainly disagree, my personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference (but then you have to ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it, though there can be good answers to that question). Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing Summary -- I am closing this case for several reasons: -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Lack of participation -- Only one editor has made a comment besides the filing party.
 * 2) Inactivity - No comments for 4 days
 * 3) Inadequate talk page discussion - There was a lot of chest beating and references to a prior consensus of 2007 but the actual content issue was not adequately discussed.
 * 4) Article is stable -- There have been no edits to the article for more than 10 days and no discussion on the talk page since this case was filed four days ago.

Talk:Erigavo#Clans
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The user Middayexperss is not sincere on resolving our dispute regarding The regional capital of Sanaag region of Somalia. He keeps injecting his clan in Erigavo based on weak arguments with no backbone despite providing sources on my behalf that proves who are the majority.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussions on the talk pages were not fruitful as he obviously brings nonsense arguments while his friend is cheering for him.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate between us.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is the second frivolous post here by this editor in a little over a week. He or she likewise has no idea what my ethnic group or gender is let alone clan, as I have not volunteered any such personal info. As AcidSnow notes below, the ip has also admitted to being a sock. Earlier post by this editor was in part closed for this reason. Middayexpress (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AcidSnow
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't plan on participating in this discussion but it should be noted that the IP is just another sock of user Reer Woqooyi. He has admitted to be so as well: "I tried on the talk page, but they got me blocked over another dispute" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKhatumo_State&diff=644852655&oldid=623951973 I hope your happy after blocking me. It won't help though, am calling a mediator"]. AcidSnow (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Erigavo#Clans discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * I'm boldly closing this report PER WP:DENY as it was initiated by a block evading IP. Apologies for any templates or procedures I may have borked in the process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)