Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I have some concern regarding NPOV and the due weight of several references. Following a previous case I've filed which brought several outside editors to the article, the user in question, Keahapana, had attempted on several occasions to restore some disputed material, which I feel violates WP:OWN, ,. The material in question has been challenged by several other editors,, but nevertheless was allowed to remain for the next months.

I've made several changes on May 15 per the previous discussion, which was reverted by Keahapana 5 days later. There's some reverts forth and back since.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page discussion at, which has been inconclusive due to the lack of outside editors. Due to my past history with the article and editor in question, I do not believe that I can engage in a amicable discussion without third party mediation.


 * How do you think we can help?

Hopefully solve the disputes over reverted material and find a mutually satisfying conclusion.

PCPP (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Comment by Homunculus
Two things:
 * PCPP, today you deleted some material from the page.  Are you satisfied with the current version ?  Or are there outstanding issues?  If the latter, would you be willing to list them point-by-point as a basis for discussion?   (For the record, I think the version as it now stands is fine, though other parties may disagree; the deletions this morning were much less significant than previous ones).
 * There has been some ambiguity over whether PCPP's involvement with this page constitutes a breach of a topic ban he is under. He has been warned for this a couple times (most recently here though the exact parameters and terms of the ban may need to be clarified. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to propose this, but if the user is not allowed to edit the article, maybe he could raise specific concerns (unrelated to his topic banned area) in this forum and allow other parties to discuss / edit accordingly. Homunculus (duihua) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Keahapana
I welcome DRN help resolving this dispute and look forward to hearing independent comments. Rather than again explain my admittedly subjective opinions, I suggest that participants draw their own conclusions from the Talk and History pages. To summarize, some editors and I have repeatedly asked that large-scale deletions be discussed in advance, but other editors choose not to seek consensus. Our request, as quoted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concerns_and_controversies_over_Confucius_Institutes&diff=476541912&oldid=476175294 current fn. 52] above is, "if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again". Taking one of today's diffs (made under the rubric "Paraphrased CSM quote per NPOV") as an example, compare Based on Wikipedia standards and conventions, which content version is preferable? Keahapana (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A Christian Science Monitor article critically framed the CI question of academic freedom, "Let's suppose that a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government offered to pay for American teens to study its national language in our schools. Would you take the deal?"
 * A Christian Science Monitor article argued that teaching of Chinese language in the United States should be done on the terms of freedom, open discussion and democracy.

Comment by PCPP
Hi, I've read the discussion, and per the terms, I will not edit the main page of the article while the discussion is going on, and will not touch or mention the paragraphs regarding FLG. Overall, I feel that this article is overlong with quotes, and some can be better served with summarized statements. I also feel a need to distinguish between criticisms of CI and criticisms of individuals working at CI. My main disputes are with several of Keahapana's recent additions, which I view as failing to satisfy NPOV and due weight.

Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with:


 * 1)

Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.


 * 2)

A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence.


 * 3)

Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy.


 * 4)

A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations.


 * 5)

A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy"


 * 6)

A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill.


 * 7)

A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.


 * 8)

A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements.


 * 9)

The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.


 * 10)

Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE.


 * 11)

Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight.


 * 12) Lastly, I feel that the article would serve better if it was renamed "Reception of Confucius Institutes" or something similar instead, since the current title emphasizes an undue weight on negatives, suffer from a repetition of similar statements, while not giving due weight to CI's side of the story. I also feel that this article is in danger of becoming a collection of random negative stories on CI pulled from Google news, and as such, does not satisfy WP:CRIT. Perhaps the article could be restyled after similar criticism articles on Microsoft and Apple, where the criticism is organized by a clear heading and opening statement, present all sides using very little direct quotes and more concise paraphrasing. --PCPP (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Clerk Comment: I am a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to take a look at the dispute. I'll take a look at the article in question and try to give some insight. I'd like to give a couple of reminders, first, though:
 * 1) We do not make administrative rulings here. DRN exists to help editors establish consensus and to prevent editor conflicts from escalating.  We do not "pass judgment" on which content is preferable; we merely help the involved editors decide that for themselves.
 * 2) While the issue is being discussed here in DRN, it's best if the involved editors refrain from editing the article/section in question (except to revert obvious vandalism). If you would like to make an edit to the article, discuss it here (or on the article's talk page) first so that we have transparency.

I haven't had a chance to review both sides of the issue or look at the article in-depth, but I will try to comment when I am a little more familiar with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Hello everyone. I think I will leave most of this in the capable hands of Sleddog116, but I thought I would provide some background as I closed the last DRN thread about this article. Here is a list of links: It is my understanding that editing the parts of the article might not be a technical violation of PCPP's falun gong topic ban, but that the issue is not black and white, and if an administrator thinks that he has been testing the boundaries of the ban then he could be blocked anyway. I would suggest that he only edit the talk page, just to be on the safe side, and ask for third-party assistance (as he has done here) rather than editing the page directly.
 * Previous DRN thread in January 2012
 * Arbitration enforcement links for PCPP: February 2011, November 2011, January 2012, and another in January 2012
 * Current arbitration case Falun Gong 2, which is not directly related but involves a few of the editors here, and is about the area of PCPP's topic ban

Reading the article, I think that it shows symptoms of systemic bias, and could do with more commentary from the Confucius Institute and its supporters to balance out the criticisms raised. For example, the "espionage" section reports many allegations that the Confucius Institute or its employees have engaged in espionage, with not a single rebuttal from the CI itself. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, I find it hard to believe that if serious allegations of espionage were made, the CI did not even attempt to rebut them.

We must also remember to be culturally sensitive about the subject matter here. People generally see reality through the prism of their native culture, and it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking our own culture is "normal" or "right", and that other cultures are "strange" or "wrong". For example, from a Western viewpoint, the CI asking that no-one talk about Tibet might be seen as "stifling freedom" or "toeing the Communist Party line"; from a Chinese viewpoint, however, it might just be seen as the CI being respectful to their superiors back home, and a necessary step to avoid embarrassing them. In my opinion, we need to make sure we present a nuanced picture, and give both sides of the story. This might mean finding Chinese-language sources if we cannot find English sources that would do the job. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a way to kick of the discussion, I agree with Homunculus that it would be good if PCPP could present a point-by-point list of the things he is concerned about. That will help us keep this discussion focused and productive. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Sleddog116:

Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. I can't really argue with anything you just said. I've taken a look at the argument, and I've reviewed the most recent edit history of the article. As Homunculus and Strad said, I think PCPP needs to give a brief point-by-point list of concerns. I'm not going to comment on the IBAN issue, but I think I might have an administrator take a look at this and see if it's going to be a concern. Without taking the IBAN into the account, I see basically two main grievances from the disputants:


 * By PCPP: The other editors are finding every possible negative source (many of which are allegedly unreliable) and including it here.
 * By the other disputants: PCPP is removing every negative fact from the article, even those that are reliably sourced.

Is that an accurate synopsis of the essence of the argument, or have I missed something important? As far as I can tell, this is a simple, clear-cut case of WP:REDFLAG and Neutrality of Sources. Remember: ''All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say.''

For instance, this removal was completely justified because, as far as I can tell, the material that PCPP removed was not in the given source, so it would not be WP:NPOV to present it as such without attributing it to a reliable source.

On the other hand, removing every negative source is also not justified. This is not an issue that can be settled arbitrarily. Neutral point of view does not mean "fill the article with non-neutral statements but make sure both sides are equal"; neutrality is presenting the information in a neutral way and attributing it to sources. Some will be positive, some will be negative. The prominence of each viewpoint will determine how much "weight" each one gives. We can't simply look at the article and "balance the positive and the negative" if that's going to give a viewpoint undue weight. For instance, there is a significant number of people who deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, but because this viewpoint (though extensively published) represents an extremely small minority, Holocaust denial is not even mentioned in the Holocaust article except in the "See Also" section. Doing otherwise would give Holocaust denial undue weight.

If the prevailing reliably-published view towards the subject is negative, then that negativity will be reflected in the article. Period. That is simply how Wikipedia works - we never get anything first, and we don't make inferences about our subject matter; we simply pass on, summarize, and/or simplify what can already be found in other sources. On the other hand, since this is the English Wikipedia, the majority of our reliable sources will invariably demonstrate a Western bias. Therefore, I think we need other sources, as Mr. Stradivarius said above. The Monitor is a good source, but we do need to see if we can find some other sources.

PCPP, I think, again, that you should also be a little more specific with the exact problems you have with the article as it is. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have spoken with an administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and he clarified the terms of the ban(s) on PCPP: "OK, the Confucius Institution in and of itself is completely fine, it's only the parts of it relating to their discrimination against the Falun Gong and any responses to said discrimination that fall under PCPP's ban (he's indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, broadly construed). If that's happened, that'd be a clear violation of his topic ban; if not, I don't think there's an issue." Now, I'm not entirely sure of exactly how to interpret "broadly construed," but based on Blade's response, I don't think any ban violation has occurred yet.  But since the topic is "broadly construed," it could easily become a problem if it escalates. PCPP, I suggest you keep this in mind. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Keahapana

Thanks Sleddog116 and Mr. Stradivarius. I'm not familiar with the dispute resolution process, and appreciate your thoughts. Yes, your synopsis is accurate, and available trustworthy sources on CI controversies are problematic. I double-checked that removal, and the linked Starr article says, "The issue was taken up in the Swedish Parliament where Göran Lindblad compared the CIs to Mussolini's Italian institutes of the 1930s and expressed extreme concern about the links between the Nordic Institute and Stockholm University." Although several reliable sources mention this historical parallel, "Mussolini comparisons" have been removed and restored without consensus. Keahapana (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sleddog116, any recommendations on how to organize this page?  Should each involved party have their own section, or is it better to proceed with the conversation as one would on an article talk page? Homunculus (duihua) 17:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break
For now, let's just talk about it like we'd do it on an article talk page. Thank you, PCPP, for providing us with a list of specific concerns. I think the best bet at this point would be to take each one of PCPP's concerns listed above (starting at the top) and discuss the problems with and/or solutions for each one. Remember, please address edits, not editor conduct. We've already addressed PCPP's TBAN, and since the admin I spoke to does not think a violation has occurred, we'll leave it at that. From here on, try to keep the discussion focused on the problem with edits. I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been somewhat busy over the last few days. What I would like to see all of you doing here is taking each of PCPP's concerns and addressing them one by one. I'm mostly going to just let you discuss the problems, but I'll be here to keep the discussion focused and provide input if anyone requests it. Since there are a lot of concerns, it could be a lengthy discussion, so let's all try to keep cool heads and remember that Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A note for everyone - I have just found out that PCPP's edits to this article have been directly mentioned in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case here. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this some more, I've come to the conclusion that we need to wait until the arbitration case is over before we can proceed with normal dispute resolution on this article. Now that PCPP and this article have been mentioned directly, we don't want to do anything that might pre-empt ArbCom's decision. This also applies even if ArbCom decides that PCPP's topic ban and his edits related to this dispute are outside of the scope of the case completely. I'm afraid that this means resolving the dispute will take more time than it otherwise might, but then again, there is no deadline. The decision is due at the end of the month, so that's not all that long to wait. I'll close this thread in 24 hours unless anyone has any objections. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly approve of Mr. Stradivarius' solution above. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mr. Stradivarius. I received an e-mail from PCPP informing me of the Arbitration case (which can be found here), and I think we're probably all in over our heads if we try to proceed while arbitration is ongoing. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The Falun Gong edit warring has spread into other articles (including this one), which the ArbCom decision might affect. For the sake of Wikipedia readers, I would request a roll back of the deleted 2 Kb to the last stable version. Whatever you decide is OK with me. Thanks for your help. Keahapana (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not going to restore anything. The dispute has not been settled yet, so it wouldn't be proper to restore the deleted material.  The current version of the article is "stable."  "Not stable" means that the article is heavily vandalized, which isn't the case here; there is an ongoing content dispute.  When that is settled (which will probably require waiting for the ArbCom results), we can then decide how to best proceed.  For now, however, I would suggest that all of the involved parties edit in other areas of the project until the matter is resolved.  I can't enforce that suggestion, of course, but it seems like the least problematic way to go at this point. Sleddog116 (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wandering Son


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This is basically a dispute on what pronouns should be used for certain characters in a fictional series where two of the main characters have expressed interest in being the opposite sex. In this case, the first protagonist Shuichi Nitori is a biological boy who wants to be a girl, and the second protagonist Yoshino Takatsuki is a biological girl who wants to be a boy.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?



It is my belief that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This is the second time the issue was taken up on the talk page, the first being almost a year ago. The current discussion can be seen at Talk:Wandering Son. There were also various edit history comments posted, which lead no where. Assuming 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person, they seem to prefer not discussing much of anything, as 137.52.209.97 only edited the talk page once, and this was the only diff of someone arguing to use female pronouns for Shuichi and male for Yoshino (or in other words, the opposite of their biological "assigned" sexes). The other editors on the talk page have been in favor of using their biological sexes to determine which pronouns to use, and two editors have expressed confusion on the recent changes that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 have done to the article:,.


 * How do you think we can help?

An outside opinion would be helpful, but mainly I'm trying to resolve the dispute with the various guidelines and policies I and others have outlined on the talk page. The dispute mainly comes down to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which I believe 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are going against in this case.

 十  八  03:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wandering Son discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Hello everyone, I'm a clerk here at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I thought I would give my opinion on this dispute. My apologies to the IP, but the guidance at MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on how we treat these kinds of issues. In the absence of any self-identification, which is impossible given that we are talking about fictional characters, we must use the pronouns that are used in the sources on the subject. If in this case, as has been indicated on the talk page, both the work itself and the secondary sources use the characters' biological gender pronouns, then this is what Wikipedia must do too. So we should make sure we refer to Shuichi as a "he" and Yoshino as a "she" throughout the article. This is not meant to undermine the trans-gender themes in the article at all, and we should make sure we cover these aspects of the work with diplomacy and tact. Pronouns are not an area that we can compromise on, however. I think we should clean up the rest of the article to use the biological gender pronouns, and if there is further edit warring we can report it at WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP as appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who participated in the discussion, I don't feel identified with the comment above that "The other editors on the talk page have been in favor of using their biological sexes". At Birdo which is a similar case I sugested changing the article to the feminine form. Here, before making a decision, I'd like a more thorough analysis of how the characters describe themselves in the original language; the decision above to use the biological-cellular-sex seems to be based on someone else's translation, and the wording of the scenes where the characters express their desire to belong to the other genre. Otherwise it's not clear that there's really an "absence of any self-identification" and that the pronouns used by third-party sources are the ones to use. Diego (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Japanese typically doesn't use male/female pronouns, so it doesn't really apply. The closest the manga comes to calling Shuichi a boy with a pronoun in the original text is when he's called a 'boyfriend' when going with out Anna Suehiro. However, Shuichi does use the first-person pronoun boku, typically used by boys, and Yoshino uses watashi, a neutral first-person pronoun, but the "default" pronoun for girls/women. In the official English translation of the manga, as stated, male pronouns are used for Shuichi and female for Yoshino. Otherwise, I've found that third-party sources refer to Shuichi as a boy, and Yoshino as a girl. Even Japanese sources like Mainichi Shimbun, and Dengeki do the same, as do numerous English sources.--  十  八  21:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I propose we keep it as referring to their biological sexes and to how the English translations refer to them as, including all pronouns. Refer to Shuichi as a he and Yoshino as a she. We can still say they are biologically boy and girl who want to be the opposite. There is really no need to confuse people any further. Finally, I suggest make the page protected after making the aforementioned changes, in response to the constant edit wars. 74.72.170.51 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not the right place to request page protection. Our goal is to act as mediators and to help those in disputes to come to an agreement among themselves. If you have given mediation a fair try and still can not agree, let us know and we will advise you as to where to go next (which may or may not involve page protection). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenera Research


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a dispute about what citations fall within Wikipedia's rules. The dispute involves disagreements about whether various citations are verifiable, whether some content is opinion, and whether some content is original research? For example, is a citation to a listing of patent applications on the US patent offices website allowed? Is it appropriate to categorize patents based on the listing where no categorization information is present? Is a reference to an individual a suitable citation? These issues I believe can be easily resolved.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Two attempts to discuss the issue have been made, but no response has been received.


 * How do you think we can help?

Simply tell the users what the rules are with respect to the issues described above. It's apparent rules are either not known or are not being followed.

Zepheydog (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenera Research discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

My understanding was delete requests were not to be removed until the discussion surrounding deletion had been completed. Zepheydog has improperly removed the tag. This appears to be part of a dispute outside of wikipedia that is being fought on a wikipedia page. The reason for deletion was related to whether the entity was noteworthy and based on the apparent conflicts of interest with the parties involved. A company that isn't noteworthy shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Further, wikipedia shouldn't be used to further disputes outside of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadenuff (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Filer, please state where you have discussed the issue.Curb Chain (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there of a dispute outside Wikipedia? What relevance does it have? The issues associated with the articles were described above and have to do with proper citations, original research, etc. It's not about anything else. Also, just to clarify, I removed the delete header by mistake. I've never edited an article marked for deletion. I apologize.--Zepheydog (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You did not answer the question. Above, in answer to the question "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" you wrote "Two attempts to discuss the issue have been made, but no response has been received." Where can I go to see those two attempts? They are not at Talk:Scenera Research. Where are they? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Callitlikeicit's talk page and Merrygoround92's talk page (links above). I did not participate in either of those attempts. I merely observed that there had been no response to either. To be honest, I opened this thread because I thought marking the article for deletion was a drastic step to take to resolve what seem like issues that are easily resolved. I hoped that the users involved including myself would receive some advice. Given that the article is now in the deletion process, I'm not sure this separate thread is needed. Some advice on this aspect would also be appreciated. If there are other questions I didn't answer completely or properly, please let me know.--Zepheydog (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As is says at the top of this page, "The first step in any dispute is ordinary talk page discussion. This page is a general next step after that has been attempted" You need to go to talk:Scenera Research and make a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute before filing here. If that fails, go to Dispute resolution requests for guidance on what to do next. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

In this edit a new IP editor added a statement about the Health Services Union refusing to investigate the finances of a Victorian branch of the union. However, the source provided to support the statement says that it was actually the Victorian branch requesting that the national finances be investigated. The article is therefore incorrect, and it should be reworded to swap the roles of branch and head office. I've been trying to either remove the incorrect statement, or correct it, but have had no luck in discussion. Unfortunately the new editor's efforts to defend his insertion without regard to the normal discussion procedures of indentation have jumbled things around a bit, but it settles down towards the end of the section.

Here's the current statement:The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009.

Here's the quote from the source: ''HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting.''

At the least, the statement in the article should read: The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the national union following a petition by members of HSU No.4 Branch in July 2009.

(My bolding, to highlight the error.)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.
 * Disputed. I am the editor formally known as User:121.216.230.139 and no message was left on my talk page.. Further, the editor requesting this is the subject of discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Skyring_.28Pete.29_topic_ban which may be pertinent as to why this process was begun. I apologise if adding this comment here and in this way is inappropriate. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on talk page failed to resolve the wording, though we made some progress. As the article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics, I made a request there.


 * How do you think we can help?

I'd like the some fresh eyes on the wording to get the article statement to agree with the source which supposedly supports it.

Pete (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * This is a waste of time. It is absolutely obvious that Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair is going to be closed as either Merge or Delete within a few days. Starting dispute resolution on such content is futile--it's not like how that sentence is written is in some way going to effect the closing decision. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be forced to keep responding

 * (material under subheading "Roger Garaudy")
 * (entry for Roger Garaudy)

Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Unable to get User: Joseph A. Spadaro to discontinue dispute. He continues to escalate the conflict despite my stated wish to bow out of the discussion.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

please refer to the edit history and edit summaries of Deaths in 2012 and Talk:Deaths in 2012 as well as the edit history of the talk page of User:Joseph A. Spadaro


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Attempted to leave discussion, then asked more experienced editors for advice.


 * How do you think we can help?

Step in and prevent Spadaro's history from repeating itself.

67.71.2.203 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be forced to keep responding discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Just confirming that I filed this report and forgot to log in, so an IP address is listed instead. Guyovski (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just stop responding? Nobody is forcing you. See Time to take the dog for a walk and Ignore all dramas for some good advice on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Spadaro's last statement in the dispute is defamatory and unjustified. I am pretty well obliged to respond in order to prevent defamation from standing unchallenged. So far I've refrained in the hope that someone would actually review Talk:Deaths in 2012 and advise what I can do other than to respond. If no one bothers then I'll be forced to respond after all and, given Spadaro's history in past disputes and his very recent Deaths in 2012 edit reasons history, we'll end up with a bloodbath. So I repeat my request for help. Guyovski (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you believe that another editor is violating Wikipedia policy (perhaps WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA?), we have a place where you can go and get that issue resolved. Start with WP:WQA. This noticeboard is for disputes about article content, not user conduct.


 * I can't help you with your belief that you must respond to everyone who says something bad about you on the Internet. Most people (including me) have concluded that responding once or not responding at all is a better choice.


 * I am closing this because we really cannot help unless there is an article content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Guayaquil


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Me and user have a dispute about Guayaquil. The population fo the city according to the last Ecuadorian census does note exceed 2.650.000 and the other user suggests more than 3.8 million residents. This is the second time my governmenet approved census data is changed.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I tried to talk with 62.194.193.140 about this issue about the population of Guayaquil, but I was not able to contact the other editor.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please do help me on how to include the correct information about the population of this city.

Jach79 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Guayaquil discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Ancient Egyptian race controversy


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This article states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism."

We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!"

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

The account SirShawn started editing on June 11th, and except for adding something to Land of Punt has only edited this article.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner.

Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Comment simple case of ignoring consensus.  If he continues to war please file at WP:ANEW.Curb Chain (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that the article is already on article probation because of previous disruptive editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SirShawn, if you want to change the topic of an article, you need to present coherent evidence. In terms of a scholarly debate, this means multiple field reviews of the debate as conducted by scholars—not just contributions to the debate, but reviews themselves of the debate—thereby indicating that academics have achieved a consensus on a matter.  The appropriate place to do so is on an article's talk page.  Wikipedia represents, in scholarly articles, the preponderance of scholarly knowledge.  Where scholars are split on a matter, such as the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, we report on the scholarly controversy.  Edit warring, and accusing other editors of partisan editing, particularly when they're relying on reliable sources, are disruptive and not conducive to the editing process.  Calm down, read review articles and field reviews of the topic, and if you're convinced that the article's topic needs to change from reporting the scholarly controversy, to taking the position of one side in the controversy (as a result of that side's position being accepted in multiple current field reviews), then discuss this with other editors on the Talk: page of the article before editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY.

Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense.

Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? I mean if not then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously.

One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded.

As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable.

SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me that the logical next step is to discuss the sources, one by one, at the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are 3 issues here. One is the attitude of this editor, which I commented on below (why didn't I have an edit conflict here? I'm sure I was editing directly below SirShawn). Then there is how much of the material is about the history of the controversy and how much is arguing the controversy and thus should not be in the article. The third is pov (& maybe sources, eg Britannica isn't a good source for anything where you can find other sources). We can't solve the 2nd problem without getting cooperation and a willingness to abide by consensus, which so far seems far from likely. I don't know how to solve the 3rd except the same way. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir Shawn's attitude is the major problem. I see no willingness to have a serious discussion or WP:AGF (believe in the good faith of other editors). The word 'bullying' seems a bit ironic here. Statements such as "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies" don't make me want to discuss anything with this editor, and certainly don't suggest the possibility of a constructive dialogue. Nor does " If none of you three can justify why these contributions don't belong on the talk page then don't touch the article." I'm not bothered by removing the 90% thing until we can be sure of the source (looks like it might be in a similar book) but that's mainly because the genetic issue is much more complicated and that oversimplifies it. No one is trying to censor anything, and indeed Wdford replaced some of the Oxford stuff at  and  (although you wouldn't know if from the comments above). Reading the article's talk page gives a better insight into the problems being encountered.
 * This article is under ArbCom sanctions, something I'd missed when I brought this here. Dougweller (talk)


 * The problem here as I see it is not so much about the reliability of SirShawn’s cherry-picked sources, as that the topic is much broader than his selected sources reveal, and his selected sources do not represent a consensus. The full debate is clear in the daughter article Population history of Egypt, where the many contributing specialists are discussed in full. For instance, there is a large and detailed discussion around DNA, of which the disputed sentence here is but a summary. SirShawn however wants to include a handful of carefully selected sources in this article without including all the rest of the material which contradicts his POV, thus resulting in an unbalanced POV section. This has been explained several times on the talk-page, but SirShawn is not yet open to this message.
 * The material on this topic is too much for one article, and so it is spread over two separate but linked articles. This “modern scholarship” section is just a summary of the daughter article, and is clearly linked to it. If we are to follow SirShawn’s preference and incorporate the dissenting material he wants to incorporate, then to achieve an NPOV article we would essentially have to merge the two articles, which would result in a single huge and unwieldy article as it was in the past. Wdford (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you need to go back, and answer again the question "How do you think we can help?" Because originally you wanted someone to explain to User:SirShawn how to go about editing. Fifelfoo did that very clearly. What do you think should happen next? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear that someone else has come out in favor of my edits on the talk page (pulaar) who makes this issue 2 against I suppose 3).

WDford your problem with the "reliability" of my source(s) is mind boggling. First of all I have cited four prestigious encyclopedic references who all give a summarization on the issue of the "race" of the ancient Egyptians. Are honestly saying that Oxford (the actual encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), Fitzwilliam, Manchester, Nat Geo, The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt and Britannica are all biased? You seem to have a problem with my sources because they all support one particular theory and discredit others. Well tell me what does that suggest about the "controversy" of the issue? To me it suggest that most contemporary scholars have their minds made on the issue. If for whatever reason you feel that this neglects the opinions of other modern authorities then why not simply CITE other MODERN authoritative institutes (which represent the majority opinion on these issues) which say different, rather than trying to censor what the major ones say?

For neutrality purposes why can't we just include these conclusions from my sources and balance the article out with the "other" modern authorities who say otherwise? This should not be a problem if some of you could truly find other sources to corraborate distinct views on the issue.

@ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 3 editors reverted you, not two. You have again replaced your chosen version, which it appears you intend to keep doing unless somehow you are convinced otherwise. 'Pulaar' is an IP who has never edited before (see WP:SPA and hasn't actually said anything specific about your edits, and appeared after you said you would recruit other editors to support you. This is unacceptable behavior particularly when you've been told that the article is under ArbCom sanction. And this is not the article in which to try to prove a case about 'race' in Ancient Egypt, which you are pretty clearly trying to do. But it is your behavior that concerns me here. The material should have stayed out "until a proper discussion takes place." once it was reverted. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedias and National Geographic are not sufficient sources for historical articles, see reliable sources for history articles and the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. If an article is currently under Arbitration Committee sanctions, conduct issues such as disruptive "I don't hear that" behaviour may result in sanctions being applied to editors.  I would suggest that editors take any reliability issues to the reliable sources noticeboard. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I first met Grizzly on a WikiProject and then invited him to become my student as part of the CVUA. After that I started to teach him some things about vandalism and how to enable twinkle. He then asked me several times to teach him how to use it but I was either away or busy at the time, I responded saying that I am busy and will help you as soon as I get a chance. Grizzly then went and requested a new instructor thinking I did not have time for him when I actually just needed more time to reply. I replied saying I am only " I am extremely busy at the moment/today, that we already started training and I also stated he would have to follow wikipedia's writing format if he wished to be trained by me. . The co-ordinator responded to my message thinking I was complaining and it aroused a mini-argument that ended in a civil matter. We then proceeded like nothing happened until Grizzly reopened the argument saying I stalk him (I was monitoring his edits and most of his edits came through huggle), criticize him and won't train him. . I then agreed on the fact that he needed a new instructor because we obviously didn't match and I was tired of cleaning up his improper edits. He then personally attacked me by calling me names, made claims saying I could be a vandal and that I was stalking him again. . My response was adding the admin help template and stating that I wanted an administrator in the conversation. . After that Grizzly tried removing the evidence and my comments three times (which I undid and warned him for.) (article history)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I requested admin help and I warned the user.


 * How do you think we can help?

I am requesting that a 24 hour block be placed on the user so he cam calm down and rethink his actions or I would like an administrator to talk to him regarding his actions and how they were inappropriate.

Cheers, Riley Huntley  (Click here to reply)   22:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll discussion
Comment - This dispute may be better off at another forum, such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. This forum, WP:DRN is focused on "content disputes", which are controversies over which material to include (or exclude) from WP articles. The issue here seems to be a behavioral issue centered on a page that is not a normal WP article. Probably best to bring this up at forums dedicated to behavioral problems such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, for what it is worth, my advice to R. Hunter would be to simply ignore the other editor, I'm sure they will calm down and move along to other things shortly. Escalating to WP:ANI may drag it out longer than just ignoring it. --Noleander (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment As a fellow CVUA Instructor, I agree with Riley. We are trying to help serious students learn about vandalism and get rollback, and we have already had to drop one student this month. We aren't interested in taking students who are personally attacking instructors, or who are vandals themselves. I agree with Riley that a block might possibly be in order, although this might be a borderline "cool-down block", which are forbidden. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: The issues discussed here are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. For user conduct issues, please go to Wikiquette Assistance. If you are seeking blocks, discuss the issue with administrators at the administrator noticeboard. Thank you. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This dispute only concerns the section titled 'Alternative use' on Resource-based economy. A paragraph based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted.
 * This is a [| diff] showing the paragraph.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

From looking at the talk page, OpenFuture and Earl King Jr. seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012 and 12 March 2012‎, respectively. From the first day of their involvement in the article to date, the only major edits these two editors provided have been deletions/ reversions of edits. The deleted/ reverted edits were based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources. Their actions always reverted the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

Starting on 12 May 2012,‎ I began the process of providing several additional verifiable, reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the two users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I tried to resolve this dispute many times on the talk page of Resource-based economy. Each time, the substance of my comments have been ignored (the two editors mentioned above have not responded to the substance of my arguments explaining that the paragraph above [defining the alternative use of RBE] is neutral, and that the paragraph is fully supported by the set of sources referenced at the end of the paragraph). Instead, the editors frequently voiced their personal opinions (not based on WP policies, rules, regulations or guidelines), or repeatedly used the talk page of the article as a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, instead of discussing specific, concrete, substantive issues directly related to improving the encyclopedic content of the  article.

(Please note that some parts of the conversations on the talk page focused on issues related to the fact that I translated two verifiable, reliable foreign-language sources and used the translations (in addition to several verifiable, reliable English-language sources) to support my edits. You can probably ignore the substance of these particular portions of the conversations because over the last 2 days, with the help of editor CambridgeBayWeather, we seem to have resolved the issue of the translations, with the final result apparently being that the foreign-language sources can be used in citations and quotations to support my edits.)

Here are some talk-page diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * How do you think we can help?

Assess the merits of my edit. Determine (or recommend) which part(s), if any, of my suggested edits (the paragraph above providing an alternative definition of RBE) are not supported by the set of sources. If my suggested edits are inadequate to describe the alternative usage of RBE, suggest a proper alternative definition of RBE, based strictly on citations from the sources (referenced at the end of my suggested paragraph): The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, TheMarker, Globes (which are all verifiable, reliable secondary sources) and The Venus Project (a primary source). (Or, of course, any additional verifiable, reliable sources that describe the Technocracy Movement's, the Venus Project's and the Zeitgeist Movement's alternative usage of the term 'RBE', such as the six TV interviews listed on the Peter Joseph web site, etc.)

Thank you.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis.

We are also at least four editors that agree on a "best last version" that we want to use as the basis for improving the article, and we have asked IjonTichyIjonTichy to explain what he thinks is wrong with that version so we can discuss how to improve it, but IjonTichyIjonTichy refuses to engage in constructive debate, and even admits this on the talk page. The result was an edit war, but the page is currently protected to stop his repeated edits against consensus, so that is currently under control. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(I added bobrayner and Night of The Big Wind as involved, and notified them, as they also have reverted IjonTichyIjonTichy's changes back to a "last good version", and hence also reasonably are involved in this). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put by User:OpenFuture: almost certainly WP:SYNTHESIS; 8 references for the last sentence, 2 references for the first sentence in the proposed section and everything else in the proposed section unsourced.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My involvement with the article is due to an earlier editwar at the article. I rewrote the article to a short version giving more honour to the original meaning of Resource Based Economy (an economy built on production and export of raw materials like ore and oil) instead of the Resource Based Economy theory from mr. Fresco/Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement. As a compromise I have balanced both evenly. Reason for that is that the economy based explanation is far older and widespread, both on the internet rather poorly sourced. The ideology seems to be a tiny local project, capable of generating a enormous amount of publicity. Even with the balancing act, I regard the economy based explanation as severely undervalued in the article. The ideology I regard as severely overvalued. So when complainant added a total of 1,402 bytes (about 45%, previous size of the article was 3,114 bytes) to the article, all added to the ideology section, I removed that as giving undue weight to the ideology. And I still stand for that. Night of the Big Wind talk  10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) after that, I took a break from the article
 * Complainant seems to be extremely interested in having been editing heavely on several RBE-ideology related pages. Is it possible for the complainant to explain his involvement in the Zeitgeist Movement (and related subjects), because of a possible Conflict of Interest? Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict of interest. I developed the Zeitgeist Movement article from a skeletal, un-encyclopedic version into something closer to an encyclopedic article. (It is not perfect but it is a huge improvement over the original.) In my edits, I included many citations and quotations from reliable sources providing relatively extensive criticism of many aspects of RBE (and TZM).    IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Page has been protected for 72 hours because of edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I placed the protection, and any admin here is free to modify or remove without additional notification.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history, the protection was clearly the right thing to do. I am not going to name names at this point, but if an editor is edit warring, he/she needs to figure out a better way to resolve disputes. Dispute resolution is ab excellent place to start learning. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor in question could start with answering the questions posed to him. Like "What is wrong with the current version". He still hasn't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture has been spamming my user talk page. I've removed his numerous comments but he keeps on spamming. What can be done to stop his Ad hominem attacks? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is untrue, and irrelevant for this dispute resolution. As it says above: "Please keep discussions here calm, concise, and on topic.". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture continues to spam my user talk page. Can someone stop him please? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he is asking you to stop your personal attacks. Instead of doing so, you start censoring your talkpage from the inconvenient truth.  Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is also an outright lie, as you can see from the timestamps. I have in no way continued to do anything at his talk page after my comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Time stamp of my first request to stop spamming is 16:46, 28 May
 * Time stamp of [| most-recent spamming] is 17:25, 28 May
 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, nor disputes about user conduct. If you are in a dispute about what is in the article, discuss what is in the article, not what other editors are doing or have done. If your dispute is only about user conduct, let us know and we will close this and point you to the right place to resolve that kind of dispute. If you think you have both kinds of dispute, put the editor conduct dispute on hold and work on the article conduct dispute.

I will have more to say on the actual article content dispute after I have studied the issue more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are three proposals for inclusion as the 'Alternative use' section of Resource-based economy. (Of course the references would need to be re-positioned to the end of sentences (etc.) to make the paragraph easier to read, including the bank of references at the end of the paragraph, and the spaces between references would need to be removed, etc.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal no. 1: The paragraph I proposed above in this DRN request.

Proposal no. 2: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean  a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a classless, moneyless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which this global socio-economic system is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science  and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants, and thus TTM, TVP and TZM believe that our current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. It is toward this RBE idea that TTM, TVP and TZM work to educate and inform people. TTM, TVP and TZM believe that in RBE can create a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology, but by the scientific method, venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality,   thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature.

Proposal no. 3: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean  a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which RBE is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science  and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.

Proposal no. 4: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean  a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.


 * This looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. The idea that there are economies that are largely based upon extraction of natural resources and others that are resource-poor is bog-standard economics theory.  Linking a bunch of different political and economic theories to it with "A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean" is classic coatracking that can just as easily be done with other basic economic concepts like labor, debt, investment, etc. The fact that the particular coats chosen are somewhat fringe (why not list what RBE "can also mean" to Republicans or Marxists?) makes it even worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's only one that needs to be mentioned, because only one can be shown to have notability, and that's the meaning that TVP/TZM uses. Having it be larger than the main section is indeed, IMO coat-racking. I think we all agree that it should be mentioned, just not how much and what it would say. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, if Republicans or Marxists, or any other group, also had their own definition of RBE, and the mainstream media covered these definitions in several verifiable, reliable sources (print and broadcast), would it not be reasonable to, say, create something like a disambiguation page on WP, with links to each of the definitions?
 * I propose to fully, completely, un-ambiguously separate the TTM/TVP/TZM definition of RBE from that of mainstream economics. T/T/T have very low opinion of mainstream economics; in fact they believe it is a complete fraud. In numerous video lectures and other presentations, T/T/T have voiced severe criticism of mainstream economics. The T/T/T definition of RBE has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream economics. The two concepts of RBE are divorced from each other and alienated from each other because of their irreconcilable differences, and they must be un-ambiguously separated. Any attempt to place the two fundamentally estranged, incompatible definitions on the same page is bound to failure. Even if somehow we succeed in placing these two different definitions on the same page in the short term, the effort is highly likely to fail overall in the longer term, necessitating additional DRN's (like this one) and likely going all the way to binding arbitration. I propose we solve this problem once and for all.
 * I propose creating a disambiguation page that looks perhaps something like this:


 * Resource-based economy may refer to:
 * * Resource-based economy, the economy of a country whose GDP to a large extent comes from natural resources
 * * Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements


 * If a reader selects the second link, they'll be taken to a page containing something like, say, one of the proposals above (no. 1, 2, 3 or 4) for the alternative definition of RBE.


 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is not enough things to say about the TVP meaning of RBE to warrant it's own article, and I don't really see how it solves anything. It definitely doesn't solve this dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To my opinion, the second sentence should read: * Resource-based economy, a proposed global system proposed by several fringe movements Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The TTM article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Energy. TVP is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views. TZM is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views	and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. That's why I propose alternative views (or rational skepticism). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You lost me. I don't follow what you are talking about here. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your and Night's comments regarding the second line of the proposed disambiguation page. I'm proposing the second line of the proposed disambiguation page read something like this:


 * * Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements
 * Or this:
 * * Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several rational-skepticism movements
 * Or this:
 * * Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several non-mainstream movements


 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Calling it "rational-skepticism" is directly delusional. "Non-mainstream" could work, possibly. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. If you are OK with "non-mainstream", I'm OK with it too. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, I just see one editor passionately wanting his version into the article and several other who like to see the article neutral. This start to look like POV-pushing. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis. I think it is massive p.o.v. pushing also. That section, the best last version was fine and got the job done. Having that section with 10 citations to one sentence that do not really explain anything but give more revolving information is pointless and seems advertising. Accusing the other editor of spamming a talk page is down right wrong and seems way over the top uncivil and now used for garnering sympathy here. Forget the idea of saying several of these fringe groups want world wide R.B.E. - The Technocracy groups doesn't. None of these groups are connected to each other. Venus Project does not like Zeitgeist and vice versa. Lumping them together as the same thing is not proper. IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be trying to wear everyone down. The spare last best version leads to all the groups mentioned. Right now that can stay. Some work went into making it pretty good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The current skeletal, substance-free, un-encyclopedic version of the alternative-definition section in the article still defines TTM's, TVP's and TZM's definition of RBE as "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free." Which, as I explained earlier (on the article's talk page) in several comments that were ignored (please see the diffs above), is a meaningless, empty statement that could also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement. Or military service. Or an orphanage.


 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This shows the problem with allowing a WP:COATRACK. It appears that the other editors have tried to accommodate the POV pushing by allowing a small coatrack with a vest or two hanging on it. The results is a complaint about not allowing the full coatrack and the entire collection of coats. I say get rid of the coatrack altogether. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. None of the things you listed above are economic theories. The claim that a gulag is "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is beyond absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this proposal. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The main problem with that is that The Venus Project contains zero information on the topic. Trying to improve that article proved fruitless before, maybe it could work now. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What about the two other utopian articles that begin with "The"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? That is treating people like children that need to be led along. Bad idea. Right now the article is fairly good. All the groups mentioned in that section have links that go to their own articles if people click them. Its overkill to help people or lead people that way. A Prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement military service, orphanage??, being a logical part of the discussion??, comparing that to what we are talking about? No. IjonTichyIjonTichy is not making constructive argguments, has no support for his or hers changes on the article, is bashing fellow editors about spam and vandalizing. Best course is to give a time out to IjonTichyIjonTichy|IjonTichyIjonTichy, maybe ask him not to edit the article for a while since zero people support what he is doing and he is not listening to feedback on his edits, just doing the same types of over kill information things based on o.r. p.o.v. syn. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me take each of your arguments in order.


 * First, hatnotes are not "treating people like children." They are a legitimate part of Wikipedia's disambiguation system. You can dispute whether a hatnote is needed in this particular case, but questioning the basic concept of hatnotes will not get you far.


 * Second, whether the current article is fairly good is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is not. It gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the fringe theories. I think a hatnote is a better choice.


 * Third, the prison/jail/gulag argument was a legitimate argument. It wasn't a convincing argument, but it makes a fair point -- that the fringe theories that IjonTichyIjonTichy wants to coatrack are not well described by just saying things are free. Some things (food, shelter) are free in a prison, but hat's not what the fringe theories are talking about. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described.


 * Fourth, "has no support for his or hers changes" is exactly correct. IjonTichyIjonTichy has to deal with the fact that the consensus is against him. That being said, he is doing the right thing here; proposing alternatives and trying to gather support for them. It would be wrong to not examine and fairly evaluate the alternatives he suggests.


 * Lastly, as for telling IjonTichyIjonTichy to stop editing the article, that's not going to happen. He has just as much right to edit as you or I do. Of course we all have to follow such key policies as WP:CONSENSUS, but we do not gang up and exclude someone just because they have a minority opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah o.k. points taken, but, the guy IjonTichyIjonTichy is edit warring and accusing others of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described. I don't think its a good idea because if people have any interest they can click on the main three articles in Resource-based economics, all of which explain things in detail about the three subjects. I am also just trying to help IjonTichyIjonTichy here because I am afraid he is going to be blocked or prohibited from editing this article in question at some point. That is the only reason I only suggested he take a break since his editing tactics have been rejected on the talk page of the article. So please mister User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon lay off. I did not come here to gang up on anyone. Also it is a well known fact that Wikipedia does gang up on people and that editing teams control many articles. I do not think that is the case on this article in question. Assume good faith here Mr. Guy Macon as I do not like this interaction accusation style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon is making valid arguments and he is right. And I apologize for accusing OpenFuture of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. I can see now that these accusations were baseless and unwarranted, and OpenFuture has every right to be upset and angry at me. I was a less experienced editor at the time that I made the accusations. (I am a little bit more experienced now after collaborating with so many great editors over the last 7 days in improving The Zeitgeist Movement, but I am still not anywhere as experienced as any of the editors involved in this DRN).
 * I have not edited the article since it was unlocked, and I have no intention of doing so without following key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, because I have full confidence that Guy Macon, OpenFuture, Tamfang, Arthurfragoso and other interested editors would continue to do a good job in improving the article (of course, if the consensus is that an improvement is needed). Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oy, everybody cool down! Nobody is ganging up on anyone, and nobody is telling people to stop editing, and nobody needs to lay off anything!
 * We're just saying that it would be good if IjonTichyIjonTichy discussed his controversial changes first.
 * For the hatnote, it has to go to The Venus Project is implemented, and that means that article has to be improved first. We can maybe "Gang up" on the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. This is a good idea/ action-plan. 12:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove all mention of the alternative use of the term. There is really no good reason to have an 'alternative use' section. For example, an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, including some of the main spokespersons for the movement. In several recent lectures, presentations or conversations over the last few months, Peter Joseph stated he is moving away from the term 'resource based economy' and instead using terms such as 'a new global system' etc. Please see my most recent edit of The Zeitgeist Movement. You'll notice that my edit does not mention the term 'resource-based economy', nor its abbreviation, RBE. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason TZM is moving away from it is because they have split with The Venus Project and want to distance themselves form their terminology. It's all very childish. TVP still uses the term, unfortunately. But it does make the case for a hatnote solution stronger. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As a unabashed pro Zeitgeist editor IjonTichyIjonTichy that just reverted The Zeitgeist Movement article against all consensus and I do mean all consensus, I think you are not improving the article and some intervention about your editing the article should be made since as a type of spokes person for the so called movement you are only interested in special interest group edits and have ruined the objectivity and neutrality of the article over and over by returning information that is against consensus. Sorry but that is the pattern which is holding holding and holding and no amount of reasoned consensus on the talk page seems to dissuade you from edit warring your own Zeitgeist party line view of things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I do not believe that WP:DRN can help you with this issue. It appears to be a WP:RFCU WP:RFC/U issue. Unless someone can give me a reason to believe that keeping this open longer will help, I am going to mark it unresolved and close it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you mean WP:RFC/U? —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks for catching that. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Either completely remove all mention of the alternative use of the term RBE (because an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, as discussed above), or significantly expand the alternative use to correctly describe TTM's, TVP's or TZM's usage of the term. The current description is incorrect. The most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM is this: "A holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet." . This phrase must be included, because this is the most important core idea, the most important fundamental principle of TTM, TVP and TZM. This core idea implies that, for example, Tom Harrison "owns" all the resources on the planet, making him an enormously wealthy person. The only condition is that he share this wealth equitably with everyone else on the planet, making everybody else on the planet also wealthy. Any WP editor may choose to laugh at this idea, to ridicule it, to think it is delusional nonsense, to think it is promotional, or to think it is empty rhetoric, utopianism, communism or socialism. Editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions are valid and important. I respect, recognize and acknowledge editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions. But this is the most important aspect of TTM, TZM and TVP, and it must be included, or the 'alternative use' section must be removed completely. This aspect of the 3 organizations is the basis of everything TTM, TVP and TZM stand upon. Everything else about TTM, TVP and TZM follows from this idea, is based upon this idea and builds upon this idea.
 * From The Huffington Post: "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples ..."
 * From The Venus Project: "... a holistic socio-economic system in which ... all resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few ..."
 * From the Palm Beach Post: "... In this world, we all are equal because the planet's resources belong to everyone, not a select few ..."

This is the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM because, in their view, once everyone on the planet "owns" everything on the planet equitably, there would be no need for money, class, or different countries/ states. That's why in my suggested edits (Proposals no. 1--4 above), I first provide the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM, followed by the following, based on verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources: "This system would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. Human needs would be supplied for everyone. Resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through the technological potential of sustainable development." [I added the explanation "economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" only later, to satisfy Zazaban's request for clarification. This clarification is probably not needed, since readers can find it in the article on sustainable development ].

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a question: is it a coincidence that this page now also show a dispute of you on Zeitgeit Movement (Dispute resolution noticeboard) or is there a pattern? Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there is a major pattern of personal opinion lobbying going on by IjonTichyIjonTichy. Look at the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement. He is not using Zeitgeist information even for his edits but rather his personal opinions of which are extremely strong. At first I thought he was just a member of that group trying to get their information out but now I don't think so. Another editor postualated that IjonTichyIjonTichy the editor is a vandal a while ago (Open Future) on the talk page of the Zeitgeist Movment article. He may not be a classic vandal but I think some topic ban is appropriate if he can just not get it after reams of discourse that his opinions can not be used to neutrally edit the article. I hope that does not sound harsh or attacking but, if he reverts all the time against consensus, what else is there to do? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's do a quick poll. Place your name without comment under one of the following, and optionally, add a brief comment explaining your vote in the comment section. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How should the alternative meanings be mentioned?
HAT NOTE
 * Tamfang (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

NO MENTION AT ALL
 * Tamfang (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Vote withdrawn.

IN THE TEXT, LINK ONLY

IN THE TEXT, EXPANDED
 * OpenFuture (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OTHER (SEE COMMENT)

COMMENTS
 * I Don't much like "In the text, link only", but I like it a lot better than I like "In the text, expanded". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assume "expanded" means something like what it says at the moment, which I'm OK with. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am ok with what it says at the moment also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly okay with the present text Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, some members of TZM still use the term RBE out of habit and momentum and convenience. But the movement as a whole is moving away from using this nebulous, meaningless, vague, misleading and unclear term, especially after the separation from The Venus Project: Venus claims ownership rights to the term. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent (and all-important, in the view of TZM) Z-Day in February. The term RBE does not help WP readers seeking info on TZM  -- in fact it is confusing to our readers and misleads our readers. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir, I really do not think you understand this topic and have personalized things too much with your opinions instead of the facts from the group itself. Zeitgeist completely endorses the concept of a resource based economic system in the here and now according to their official information pages http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/faq#faq5 You can not use your personal opinions of that concept to source or not source the article Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The movement's Q&A page has not been updated since the split with Venus. Peter Joseph and other key spokespersons of TZM have not used the term RBE in many months, including in the most recent Z-day, recent TED-x talks, lectures, seminars, etc. This includes, for example, the TheMarker article and TheMarker TV interview, both of which are reliable secondary sources published in January 2012; and the TED-x lectures in Feb. and March. of 2012 (links to both of these primary sources are available at our article titled Peter Joseph) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple fact of the matter is that, in spite of IjonTichyIjonTichy's efforts to synthesise his version of what TZM stands for from multiple sources, we have no clear idea what their objectives are. Unless and until they can explain in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they are tying to do, we have no business trying to do it for them. Frankly, whether they have dropped one vacuous phrase or not is neither here nor there. The TZM article isn't a platform for TZM, it is an article about TZM, and if it can't explain to a general readership what TZM's politics are,without resorting to endless cherry-picking through sources to try to divine them it shouldn't be doing it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Andy, but either I do not understand your comment, or you have a profound misunderstanding of what WP is about. What do you mean by "do it for them"? We are here to serve the interests of our readers. The readers of our TZM article are expecting to obtain a fairly/ reasonably detailed, bias-free picture of the ideas (and criticism) of TZM. As Bbb23 said on the recent TZM DRN, ".... I learned more about the movement from the HP (Huffington Post) article than I did reading the WP article ...." (end quote from Bbb23). Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article, why don't you simply do what Bbb23 did, read the HP source and use it, alone, to develop the main body of the TZM article? Or, better yet, in addition to HP, read our other reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, Palm Beach Post, VC Reporter, and use them to enhance your verifiable citations from the Huff Post. Furthermore, you can also read TheMarker, Globes, TheMarker TV interview, and 5 RT TV interviews. Once you read (any small subset of, or all of) these sources with an open mind (instead of closing your mind due to your deep hatred of TZM, evident in your vicious comments from 2010), you may find out, as Bbb23 had found out, that each and every one of these resources did an excellent job "explain(ing) in simple language, rather than nebulous buzzwords, what they (TZM) are tying to do" (quoting your own words).  Then perhaps you will be able to prove to yourself that all my edits, without exception, were based on direct verifiable citations from these reliable secondary sources, and not on synthesis, as you ignorantly claim. Upon reading these reliable secondary sources, TZM's ideas and objectives would likely be amply clear to you, and maybe you will actually make an effort to serve the needs of our readers, and not your own bloated ego, and provide your own verifiable citations from these sources to contribute to building the body of the TZM article, instead of wasting everybody's time over the last 2 years with your endless complaints. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not been following this topic (nor have it read it even now). The only reason I'm here is because of a warning left on Ijon's Talk page about personal attacks. That said, Ijon, please don't take my comments or actions as some sort of oblique basis for your conclusion that "all my edits, without exception ..." Oversimplifying a bit, my comments, if anything, support the contrary. Also, don't accuse editors of "constant whining", making "vicious comments", "deep hatred", and "ignorance". First, those accusations are personal attacks, and, second, Andy doesn't whine, and he's about as far away from ignorant as I can imagine. He's an incisive editor with a clear grasp of facts, policies, and guidelines. He may be blunt at times, but he's clear. So stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Instead of wasting everybody's time repeatedly over the last two years with your constant whining and complaining about the article..." What? My first input regarding the article was made in March this year . Or can you provide a link to these supposed "vicious comments from 2010"? And why do you think I have 'a deep hatred' of TZM? I'd never heard of it until I came across the Wikipedia article, and the endless attempts by supporters of the 'movement' to spin the page their way, and fill it with illiterate bullshit and meaningless waffle like this: . Learn to write... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Predictably, as has been your wont during the entire time you were involved with the TZM article, you continue to waste our time with your complaints, bitching, moaning and attacking. Instead, I challenge you again, as I've done in the past with all editors on the TZM article: re-direct your energies towards providing verifiable citations from a subset of (or all of) our set of reliable secondary sources to help build and develop the article. This way, our article will improve, and you, as well as other editors, would have no reason (or reduced reason) to complain. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the hell would I want to help 'build and develop' an explanation of the position of a political 'movement' that can't explain its politics in plain English without resorting to vacuous jargon? That isn't Wikipedia's job. I'm sure with the time and resources I could do it, but that would be original research. Instead we report what an educated reader (any reader, not a supporter of the movement) could find out for him/herself from publicly-available sources. We don't go trawling through such sources looking for a phrase here and there to synthesise our version of what they stand for, which is what you've been engaged in. As for your personal attack, I suspect given the fact that your last one was based on complete and utter bullshit (no link to these mysterious "vicious comments from 2010" I see), I suspect that they will be seen for what they are. Incidentally, I see your first contribution to Wikipedia under your present name was made in April this year: can you explain why you are so concerned with what supposedly occurred two years ago (not that it did)? Have you previously edited the article under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I've never used any other user name. I was sure I saw on some talk page somewhere some vicious attacks by you on editors of the TZM article, but probably your attacks were more recent and I'm confusing the date. Or maybe I'm confusing you with Zazaban, another editor on the TZM article, and his edits in August 2010 (which can be found on the article's edit history page). But I have no reason to not believe you, and thus I fully and un-equivocally apologize.

Disclaimer: The following is not meant as a personal attack, but rather an effort to try to understand. (In fact, I'm complimenting the TZM editors.) [end of disclaimer.]

Regarding your (Andy's) other specific comments on the substance of the TZM article: In essence, your comments over the last 3 months on the article's talk page (and here) may be interpreted as saying that all our reliable secondary sources are almost worthless, or, in other words, the Huff Po, NYT, Palm Beach Po, VC Reporter, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and RT TV, which have a combined readership and viewership in the millions, do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English (my words, not yours). Or in other words, your comments apparently seem to imply that an educated reader (any reader, not a supporter of the movement) could not find out for him/herself from these highly reliable publicly-available sources an explanation of the movement's ideas. If I'm correct that indeed this is the logical conclusion from your comments, do you see why your comments are erroneous --- because what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable sources who employ highly trained, reputable writers and editors who are experts in describing difficult concepts in plain English to a mass readership (and viewership) that ranges across a wide range of formal and informal educational levels and other characteristics -- in other words, a readership very similar to that of Wikipedia -- what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil. Conclusion: at least some, if not all, of these resources are actually pretty good for the purpose of developing the article. [By the way, the writer of our Huff Po source is a senior editor at that paper.]

These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English, with perhaps a little bit jargon (I partially agree with you on this), but without undue jargon. The resources are not the problem. The problem appears to be that, from viewing the edit history of the TZM article over the last 2 years, and from your (legitimate, and properly worded) question regarding my past history, and from a recent comment by Zazaban on the Outline of automation accusing the TZM entry of propaganda [side note: if memory serves me right, that entry was written by the administrator for the outline project, not me], based on this evidence, I believe that you, Zazaban, OpenFuture, Bob Rayner, Tom harrison, Ankh Morpork, and other editors, all of whom only have the best intentions and are all motivated to protect our readers from bias and propaganda, are, probably not entirely unjustifiably, deeply suspicious of any new editor trying to develop the article in the interest of our readers based on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources, and instead (as I said, not without merit), these editors (including you, and again, please don't take this as a personal attack) almost automatically suspect all such development efforts as an attempt to develop the article in the interest of TZM propaganda.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some comments:
 * "do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English" - I agree with this.
 * "what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil." - Not at all. You miss a thing here. The probability that all these sources are unable to explain a difficult concept that they have had explained to them is indeed near to nil. But the problem may lie elsewhere than with the journalists. If the problem was with the journalists, then reasonably the primary sources should do a better job in these explanations. Their explanations might not be simple and well written, but they should explain, at least, right?
 * But, they don't. The websites videos and wrotings of Fresco and Joseph et al do not do do any better in explaining these things. And if they can't tell the journalists what they actually want, how will the journalists explain to their readers?
 * "These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English" - No they do not. I suspect the reason is very simple: Neither Fresco not Joesph nor any of their followers understand what they are talking about. They can't explain it, because there is nothing to explain. Their ideas are not new, it's just old recycled ideas that already has been proven to not work, but with a new name. But can I say this in the article? No, because I'd need a reliable source. And for a reliable source to say that, it needs to know exactly what TZM/TVP are actually proposing, outside of buzzwords, fluff, utopism and nice vibrations. But they don't say. Because they don't know.
 * Now, this is not the forum to discuss RBE/TVP/TZM. If you want to, we can do that, and I can explain all this more closely some other place. Email, a discussion forum, whatever. You choose. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with almost everything in your comment, because it is based on opinion and not facts. You said yourself, when you justified the inclusion of the awful hate- and fear-mongering piece by Tablet magazine, that our job is only to cite from reliable sources, not to judge the sources. But here you go into a lengthy (but empty) explanation as to why we should not cite from reliable sources which have almost infinitely wider readership than the small handful of readers of Tablet, based on your arbitrary judgement of the sources.
 * However, I agree this is not the forum to discuss in detail. We can continue this on the TZM talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "But here you go into a lengthy (but empty) explanation as to why we should not cite from reliable sources" - No I did not. I said no such thing whatsoever. What AndyTheGrump is saying (and I agree) is that we (or rather you) should stop trying to speculate and synthesize these sources in order to conjure up a more concrete vision of the TZM/TVP utopia than they are able to do themselves. To that I can now add that you should please stop conjuring up and synthesizing claims of what I say and don't say. What I say stands above. Nowhere are there in what I say the words "we should not cite from reliable sources". Hence I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Don't try to "interpret" what I say, or draw conclusions of what my opinions are. You will fail. I say what I mean, no more, no less.
 * " We can continue this on the TZM talk page." - When I said that this isn't the right forum, I meant Wikipedia. This was also made clear by the examples of fora that could be the right fora. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is not intended as a personal attack. I'm only expressing disagreement with the substance of your comments' argument/ approach/ style.

You are again doing what you are very good at: it looks like you may be arbitrarily limiting the parameters of the discussion and debate to suit your needs, (or raising the bar unrealistically high as you did on the TZM talk page), coming up with all sorts of baseless excuses which may imply why a set of excellent and highly reliable secondary sources may not be good enough, implying that I can only continue this discussion and debate in the forums of your choosing, and other exercises in empty, arbitrary rhetoric that do not contribute to the development of the article and only waste everybody's time. As I wrote before several times: if instead of writing these comments full of lofty rhetoric that, in the end, do not contribute to the improvement of the article, you would have actually made the effort to cite from our resources in an effort to improve the article, the article could look better and we may not have needed to have this 'conversation' in the first place. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @IjonTichyIjonTichy: I have been doing exactly none of those things you accuse me of doing. It's clear to me that you are no longer discussing with me, and this is not intended as a personal attack, but you are discussing with a straw man you call "OpenFuture" who does not exist. I do not say the things you claim I say, I do not do the things you claim I do, I do not have the opinions you claim I have. It is not possible to have a constructive discussion when only one person actually reads and answers what is said, and the other person answers some imaginary creatures imaginary postings.
 * @Everyone else: I don't know how to deal with editors that simply refuses (or are unable) to engage in discussion, while he still thinks (or pretends) to discuss. It has happened me before on Wikipedia, and it's equally frustrating every time. Are there any recommendations how we should deal with IjonTichyIjonTichy? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One way to solve the dispute is to topic ban Ijon from the article for being a disruptive editor. He goes back and forth in every conceivable way of attacking, then praising editors, all the while refusing to abide consensus. Using his own personal opinions and acting now as if the editors on en.Wikipedia are somehow mixed in an editing conspiracy against his personal opinions of how the article should go. I don't think Ijon is actually involved in the so called movement now because his opinions even are so very far away from their party line, if I can use that term party line of for instance using a resource based economics concept which he now denies is part of their scheme. So another format for a topic ban for being a disruptive editor?. No amount of time intensive pleading seems to make any difference about his personal attacks intermittent with equally inappropriate praising for fake or conjured consensus that editor 'makes up' to rationalize their own o.r. syn. and put downs.  Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone has a suggestion as to how DRN can help, I am seriously considering closing this as "unresolved" and suggesting that you take this to WP:WQA and, if that does not help, to WP:RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that IjonTichyIjonTichy (who started this thread) has actually turned 180 degrees during this discussion, from backing in 'TZM interpretation' of the 'resource based economy' concept to an (unsourced) assertion that they no longer use this bit of vacuous jargon anyway, I can't see any logical reason to keep this discussion open. Whatever we decide to do regarding the relevant articles, we can't base it on the unverifiable assertions of involved parties, regardless of whether they are TZM supporters or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is beyond DRN now. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:47 (UTC) Reason: Consensus appears to be that we have done all we can here.

Assam#Etymology


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The current dispute is about the section Assam. Specifically, it is about whether the name "Assam" can be traced to 13th century Shan invaders. A general consensus does exist that the name can be traced to them, but which User:Bhaskarbhagawati is resisting. A third opinion was requested, (for the discussion, look here: Talk:Assam). At the end of the section two alternative texts are given: Talk:Assam (User:Bhaskarbhagawati) and Talk:Assam (User:Chaipau). User:H_tan_H_epi_tas responded to the Third Opinion request. User:Chaipau has accepted the verdict, but User:Bhaskarbhagawati has responded by questioning the status of User:H_tan_H_epi_tas.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

At first, attempts at discussion with User:Bhaskarbhagawati were unsuccessful. Messages left at his talk pages were blanked (see here). Comments on the talk pages were also deleted (see here). Then a Third Opinion request was made, which has led to an ad hominem attack on the Third Opinion responder.


 * How do you think we can help?
 * General guidelines what the next step should be.
 * Examine Talk:Assam and Talk:Assam and judge which text is acceptable for Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Assam#Etymology discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the original page section should be protected in some way to avoid further complications until an agreement is reached. As the Third Opinion provider, I make clear that I have never talked to either editor before and never had read the article in question before. I am not a resident or a national of the area either. I provided my unbiased opinion based on the alternate texts provided by the editors and the discussion in "talk". I read the arguments again tonight, and I still adhere by my original position that The Alternate text 2 suggested by User:Chaipau is better written, more clear, more rounded and with better and more critical use of references. In addition, User:Chaipau made a compromise already and accepted my suggestion that it should be pointed out to the readers that some uncertainty still remains regarding the etymology. So the Alternate Text 2 clearly states that "Though association of the name with the Shan invaders is widely accepted[12] the precise origin of the name is not clear.". I think this is a fair approach to the etymology issue. In addition, I noticed that User:bbhagawati is indeed of the habit to blanking his "talk" page, where I had left a warning for him, because he accused me of being a fraudster.

--Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:BhaskarBhagawati asked for a reference, and I have provided a scan of three pages of the book "Aspects of Early Assamese Literature". They are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AKakati1953_early_aspects_assamese_pp1%2C2.pdf


 * Though I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, I do not care to intervene at this time into the substance of this dispute, but would like to make a couple of procedural comments: First, it should be borne in mind that opinions issued through the Third Opinion Project are in no way binding and are entirely advisory, for reasons I describe in detail here. Second, except in a very few instances it is perfectly acceptable for a user to blank his or her own talk page, including most kinds of warnings. Doing so is considered to be an acknowledgment, however, that the user has read and understood everything that they remove. See WP:REMOVED for a list of what cannot be removed and a complete discussion of the matter. Third, on the other hand, it is considered a violation of the rules to remove or modify other users' comments on any talk page other than your own, with a considerable list of exceptions which can be found at WP:TPO; having said that, it should be noted that this noticeboard is not a place to discuss or complain about conduct violations such as that. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to clarify that the examples of personal talk page blanking (and the absence of any reply) was given as an example of what transpired during the effort to discuss the issue and come to a compromise. Though I have given an example of User:Bhaskarbhagawati deleting my replies to his comment, I am not asking for an arbitration on this, even though I know this is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules.  I shall be satisfied with some binding decision on the text, since right now Assam looks like a bloody battlefield, as does the rest of the article.  The sooner we can move on, the better.  --Chaipau (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, another procedural note: There is no mechanism or procedure in Wikipedia by which to make binding decisions on content. All content in Wikipedia is included or excluded via consensus and even once a consensus matter is decided, pro or con, consensus can change. The closest Wikipedia comes to a mechanism to make a binding content decision is to invite the wider Wikipedia community to a discussion via a request for comments, but the purpose of even that is to try to come to consensus about an content matter. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The contentious statement is The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam[15]. I would like to think that Wikipedia procedural rules can pass a binding decision on a nonsensical statement like "Assam is based on Assam".  The quote User:Bhagawati has provided in the reference claims "Assamese is based on the English word Assam", which is true, but which does not claim what User:Bhaskarbhagawati is claiming that "Assam is based on the English word Assam".  Elsewhere I have given quotes from a number of standard references (I can explain further, if needed) where it is accepted that the name is associated with the Shan (Ahom) invaders.  Please note that the phrase "academic consensus" was originally used in this context: "The academic consensus is that the current name is associated with the Ahom rulers who reigned for nearly six hundred years, as evidenced from Satyendra Nath Sarma's quote from Banikanta Kakati", which User:Bhaskarbhagawati co-opts for the opposing view with a dubious reference, here.  Originally, the academic consensus was shown to have been demonstrated when Satyendranath Sharma accepted Banikanta Kakati's position.  This User:Bhagawati has edited away. --Chaipau (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that Third Opinion is not binding. Just wrote a summary here about where I stand, since my username is involved, to help other contributors forming an opinion. Also, I wanted to point out that disputing editors should try to show at least some good faith towards a third opinion, or else this procedural mechanism gets completely redundant and futile.


 * I, like TransporterMan, am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at WP:DRN. I would like to expand on one point; earlier, the word "arbitration" came up. Here on DRN, we offer mediation, not arbitration. The key difference is that DRN was purposely designed to have no power to make anyone do anything. All we can do is to help you to resolve your dispute, or, failing that, guide you as to where to go next. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you TransporterMan and Guy Macon. We tried to negotiate one-on-one, then invited a third opinion and now we are widening the discussion so that a resolution can become possible.  We shall await a decision here, and if needed shall go to the next level, according to the advice we receive here. Chaipau (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Guy Macon for communication, though i am already following the discussion here and not wanted to interfere while procedures are being explained. Now, i like to put my view which is already discussed in Talk:Assam but i like to mention the same here too that i said "Assam is an English word used by British to refer a piece of land in North East India and same word is never used locally before and never referred to any tribe but land". For which i have provided the views of Scholars which mentioned both in main article and talk page. But further i like to add following links of national newspapers and websites which directed towards news item regarding proposal of name change of state of Assam due to its foreign linkage. Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Bhaskarbhagawati's claim, that "Assam is an English word used by British to refer a piece of land in North East India and same word is never used locally before and never referred to any tribe but land" is false. Assam and its equivalents were used to refer to both the Ahom community as well as the kingdom.  Banikanta Kakati has said here: "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." This is accepted by Satyendranath Sharma, Amalendu Guha and others.  Chaipau (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a bit lost as far as the actual dispute here is concerned. I just don't feel confident that my opinion would be correct - it is too far out of my area of expertise. Looks like your RfC had the same problem. Is there any chance that the two of you could work out a compromise? I am thinking something along the line of "source A says X, source B says Y" with each of you providing your best sources. I can see that you both really care about making the article better, and clearly this dispute is working against that. Look in your heart and ask yourself how far you are willing to bend toward the other position. Maybe we can get you to meet in the middle. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can begin by examining the unambiguous statements made by Banikanta Kakati. User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position number (1) that "Assam is based on Assam" is refuted by Kakati's  "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century."  User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position (2) that the name is not related to the Ahom's is refuted by Kakati's statement "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders."    Please read section 2, "Origin of 'Assam'" in the scan I have provided below (it is a multi-page PDF file).


 * File:Kakati1953_early_aspects_assamese_pp1,2.pdf


 * The links that User:BhaskarBhagawati has provided in his note in fact refutes his own position number (1). From his first link, this is a quote: "The word Assam was coined during the colonial period. Historically, it was Asom, but during British rule Assam Tea became so famous as a brand that colonial rulers did not attempt to correct the state's name," said Priyam Goswami, head of Gauhati University's History department.  All the links User:Bhaskarbhagawati has provided are newspaper links and they are silent on his assertion number (2).


 * Chaipau (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is a matter of controversy in State itself, so its obviously difficult for others to form a opinion. As matter is controversial in nature, i have already suggested earlier and doing again that it should mentioned POV's of different Scholars and Specialists (not own) with proper sourcing. Hope it concludes the discussion.

Thanks for opinion !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems Compromise and Scholarly POV's (as advised by mediator) won't work here.

Anyway regarding my position according to the disputing user that number (1) that "Assam is based on Assam" (actually its current name Assam is based on English word Assam) refuted by Kakati's "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century."' We can easily see in the quote of said author that current name is English word which is inspired by native name Asam. Though native name was connected to medieval tribe but current name was used by British referring to piece of land (not tribe). Please note we are here discussing about only current name i.e Assam. And when i said based on English word without referring to its origin, i tried to say that particular word is English one.

And regarding my position (according to same user) (2) that the name is not related to the Ahom's is refuted by Kakati's statement "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam'' by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." And asking for reading section 2 provided by him, "Origin of 'Assam'" scan  copy''. We are here discussing about current name only not about other names. So while preceding mentioned names maybe connected to a tribe but current name which possibly inspired from native name (its a another issue yet to discussed in details) is used only to refer to a large piece of land not some tribe by British. So meaning of current name Assam will be "an state in North east India" but preceding mentioned names (which we are not concerned here) are related to a medieval tribe possibly. so its meaning and references has huge differences. Current word is related to land only for which said word was coined. The upload page which disputing user refers to is itself mentioned "Assam" as an Anglicize word. I like to give an example, the name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained. On support of my claim i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced:

Banikanta Kakati says -

The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam.

Satyendranath Sarma says:-

'Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.'

Due to fact that State government propose to parliament of the country for name change of State for its foreign links. Experts from State government also includes the Ex president of highest literacy body of State. Links are provided above in my previous posts. So i like to remind again that my claim is that current name "Assam" is an "English" word used by British to refer to a piece of land in "North East India" not a tribe. And this dispute is about current name not about any other names. Thats all i like to say.

There is an old saying that its easy to wake up a sleeping person but no so easy when pretending.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Every place-name used in English is trivially an English word – Russia(n) and Brazil(ian) and Egypt(ian) are English words – so why go out of our way to say that Assam, which appears in the English Wikipedia, is an English word? The phrase "based on the English word Assam" implies that the invaders imported the name from England and said, "This place needs a name; what words aren't we using already? Ah, Assam, a fine English word that doesn't mean anything yet, we can call it that."  Why not be you satisfied with a compromise such as "Asam (or Ahom or Ačam) was (or is) the name of a tribe, adopted in English in the form Assam and applied to the territory"? —Tamfang (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Every place-name used in English is trivially an English word – Russia(n) and Brazil(ian) and Egypt(ian) are English words – so why go out of our way to say that Assam, which appears in the English Wikipedia, is an English word? It is not always true Because Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are not English words though appearing in English Wikipedia. The phrase "based on the English word Assam" implies that the invaders imported the name from England i have given quotes from Scholars above which says Assamese is based on English word Assam, is that means either of two are imports from invading country ? ''This place needs a name; what words aren't we using already? Ah, Assam, a fine English word that doesn't mean anything yet, we can call it that.'' I have already discussed that every language is dynamic and keep on adding new words to its stock with interaction of new things like word "Affluenza" is an new word which means A blend of 'affluence' and 'influenza'. A social disease resulting from extreme materialism and excessive consumerism: earning more money and consuming more, which can lead to overwork, debt, waste, stress, anxiety, etc. and do the word "Burquini" which means Blend of 'burqa' and 'bikini'. A swimsuit worn by Muslim women which covers the whole body i.e. the arms to the wrist, the legs to the ankle, with a hood to cover the hair and neck. Both this words are English now. This two doesn't meant anything before but now it does. Even this words have some influence of existing words but meaning had a big difference.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if we accept the nonsensical "Assam is based on Assam" and take it to mean that Assam was what the English named the region, it would still be untrue. The British themselves spelled the name "Asam" (with a single s) initially, before they settled on the modern form "Assam" ("Muhammadan historians wrote Āshām, and in the early dates of British rule it was spelt with a single s", Edward Gait, (1906) "History of Assam", Calcutta, p240) The correct position should be "Assam is based on Asam".  And rightfully, in a section "Etymology of Assam" we have to consider all forms of the name that preceded it.  User:Bhaskarbhagawati's position that "We are here discussing about current name only not about other names" makes no sense.


 * Edward Gait was a British colonial officer and his 1906 work is the first modern compilation of Assam's history, which is now considered a standard. He has himself suggested that other forms of the name existed before the British ("Muhammadan historians wrote Āshām").  We seem to be spending too much energy on sorting out the Englishness of "Assam".


 * Chaipau (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

''Even if we accept the nonsensical "Assam is based on Assam" and take it to mean that Assam was what the English named the region, it would still be untrue. The British themselves spelled the name "Asam" (with a single s) initially, before they settled on the modern form "Assam"'' Disputing user himself stated here that British has picked it as Asam and coined the modern word Assam. Which is exactly my point that British coined the current new name Assam referring to land not tribe though maybe inspired by some earlier name. The correct position should be "Assam is based on Asam". I have already said that word that inspired Assam is another matter of discussion. We are here concerned about word Assam i.e coined by whom and referring to what ? And rightfully, in a section "Etymology of Assam" we have to consider all forms of the name that preceded it. Its not because i have not questioned about any other previous words except the current one.

Peace !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The current evidence suggests that the Dutch were the first to use the form Assam, much before the British. (Wahid Saleh, "What's in a name?", The Assam Tribune) Nevertheless, we can accommodate your insistence that we name it English in the following text I provide below (to follow the references, please look at here: Talk:Assam).
 * Currently there exists no academic consensus on the precise etymology of "Assam". In the classical period and up to the 12th century the region east of the Karatoya river, largely congruent to present-day Assam, was called Kamarupa, and alternatively, Pragjyotisha.[19] In the medieval times the Mughals used Asham, and during British colonialism, the English used Asam and then Assam.[20] Though association of the name with the 13th century Shan invaders is widely accepted[21] the precise origin of the name is not clear. It was suggested by some that the Sanskrit word Asama ("unequalled", "peerless", etc) was the root, which has been rejected by Gait[22] as well as Kakati.[23] and it is now accepted that it is a later Sanskritization of a native name.[24] Among possible origins are Tai (A-Cham)[25] and Bodo (Ha-Sam).[26]


 * The text above associates the form Assam strongly with the English as User:Bhaskarbhagawati has suggested, but it is silent on who used the name first (was it the English or the Dutch?). I hope this is a compromise. The first sentence was the recommendation from the third opinion phase of this resolution process. Chaipau (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing about local use but it seems new discussion started here regarding first European use. Though it is out of context i like to add that its British who first used the word because :-
 * Scholars says so. (Most important)
 * British felt their presence in Bengal trade from early 1600s whereas map above was drawn as late as 1662.
 * Dutch are known for picking English words. English loanwords are common in Dutch.

My version for Etymology of Assam

Assam was known as Pragjyotisha in Mahabharata, Puranas and in other Sanskrit scriptures. It is known as Kamarupa in first millennium A.D to Early Second millennium after a Kingdom which ruled Assam for 800 years.

In medieval times Eastern part of Assam is known after a Shan tribe as Acham and later replaced by Sanskrit Asama meaning Uneven, Peerless or unequaled. Current name Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas. The British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947 came to be known as Assam. Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would desist from going into the many side issues. But I see that your text in general agrees with mine.  I do not think you have made your case that Assam is an English name, and since it is in dispute, I have suggested a compromise text which identifies "Assam" as a name used by the English, but which is silent on who used it first.  I don't think we should try to sort out that dispute.  So I invite you to accept the compromise text: "and during British colonialism, the English used Asam and then Assam" Chaipau (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of indulging in nonconstructive practices like curtailing established facts and scholarly views, its better few more lines are added challenging those views with references. Even section can be divided concentrating on two different views along with three existing or more quotes from specialists. Freedom of expression on both sides can be a real compromise. This discussion maybe closed now.

Thanks !

bbhagawati (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No established facts have been curtailed in the text above. A literal reading of "English word Assam" from Banikanta Kakati's 1941 work would be wrong, because he has modified that phrase to "the anglicised form 'Assam'" in his 1953 work.  I have also shown evidence that "Assam" was used by the Dutch in circa 1670.  So, the claim that the English used the form "Assam" first is itself in dispute.  This and other issues should be brought out in the main article Etymology of Assam, with the Assam remaining uncluttered.


 * If there are no further objections, I shall transfer the text to the etymology section.


 * Chaipau (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How Anglicization forms new English words is already discussed in Assam talk page. Regarding transfer of texts, it is not required as everything is already mentioned in said section with full citations. Signing off from this discussion.

Thanking all for cooperation !

bbhagawati (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * * User:Bhaskarbhagawati's current objections are not clear. As far as I can tell, I have addressed his concerns and made changes to the text to satisfy him and now we are back on square one.  I ask for advice from mediators of this noticeboard on how to proceed.  Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:53 (UTC) Reason: Discussion stalled, nobody seems to have a solution. Perhaps posting to WP:RSN might help?


 * Thank you for your input and help. I shall take up on the advice and go to WP:RSN.  Thanks to all who participated.  Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the related Wikipedia pages carefully for the correct procedure to follow. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If consensus is not reached after requesting a Third Opinion and a Dispute Resolution, the next steps seem to be
 * 1) Mediation and if this fails too
 * 2) Arbitration

Punisher title volume numbers


Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There has been some debate about where to include The Punisher: Purgatory in the article List of The Punisher comics, because the indicia for that comic simply says "The Punisher". This issue was debated last year, and I thought that a consensus had been reached, but now another editor insists that The Punisher: Purgatory be listed as Vol. 4 on this list, and has edit warred to maintain this POV. This editor also continues to change the volume numbers on other articles about Punisher titles accordingly, to support this POV. The List of The Punisher comics article has been temporarily protected, to force a discussion on the talk page, but I believe that some mediation by a third party is necessary.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?



I have tried to initiate discussion, in order to come to a consensus, but Snakebyte42 seems to be taking this personally. He has also made comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, that are personal attacks against me, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. I am simply the only one who has tried to discuss it with him, and warned him about edit warring on the talk pages, but he has not shown any desire to follow the Wikipedia policies that I have mentioned.


 * Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

As mentioned above, I have tried to discuss this on Talk:List of The Punisher comics, first in the thread titled "The Punisher: Purgatory", and then in the Discussion thread created after the page was protected from editing.


 * How do you think we can help?

Someone who is knowledgeable about dispute resolution may be able to explain the concepts of civility, ownership, disruptive editing, edit warring and BRD to Snakebyte42. I have made references to all of those policies, but they have fallen on deaf ears, because he is more concerned about stating "I'm right and your wrong", instead of trying to come to a consensus.

Fortdj33 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Punisher title volume numbers discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I am a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute resolution Noticeboard. Snakebyte42, I deleted your comment. Part of the deleted comment said "yes, this comment is long and talking about user interaction rather than the article itself" Clearly you know the rules but chose to not follow them. Please don't do that. We all get a bit hot under the collar at times, but you need to post arguments that are calm, reasoned, and about the article content. Lighting up your flamethrower is not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My flamethrower is not even remotely primed, and no, what rules are you referring to? I simply wrote that to defend against accusations of hypocrisy, since the bulk of the comment was directed at Fortdj33's refusal to do just that. As I've said repeatedly, I cannot discuss the contents of the article any further than I already have, since I have been dragged here rather than be presented with any counterpoints to my previous attempts to so. Please excuse the tone; it's clearly not you I'm frustrated with, I don't even know you and I'm sure you're just wonderful. If repeatedly asking the other involved user to discuss the contents of the article in increasingly elaborate and frustrated comments is not a path forward, please present me with one. EDIT: Never mind. I had something else in here about Fortdj33's comments, but I don't care anymore. Just, please instruct me in how to proceed so that this can actually move forward. I'm tired of insults happening rather than progress, and I'm including myself in that assessment. Snakebyte42 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The rules I refer to are the ones in the bog blue box at the top of this page. In particular, "This page is for resolving content disputes.".


 * You were not "dragged here" nor is this the place to "defend against accusations." You can completely ignore DRN if you wish. By design, we have no authority of any kind here. All we Mediators can do is try to help you to resolve your conflicts. If someone accuses you here -- whether true or not -- they will be told in no uncertain terms that this is not the place for that.


 * If you choose to participate, we may be able to help to resolve the issue. The first step is to stop talking about other editors. Just stop. If they talk about you, sit back and watch without commenting while they get yelled at. Focus entirely on article content; what is the specific wording that this dispute is about? Talk about what should be in the article in a clam, cool, and rational manner.


 * If, after dealing with the article content issues, you still think that there are user conduct issues, let us know and we will advise as to where to take them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and apologies. I'm tired of logging on only to find my changes reverted with no explanation about why they are wrong, only claims that I'm violating such and such with endless messages on my talk page, of which this was the last in a long line of. I do feel that I was 'dragged here', since jumping through these hoops seems to be the only way to get anything but another explanationless reversion. I'm certainly aware that it wasn't you doing the dragging, though, and this is the very last I'll say about that. I care only about one specific point in the article and related articles. I'm not a habitual editor, and I have absolutely no interest going through whatever channels exist to complain about other people if that point is resolved. If I'm acting improperly on this page, as I seem to have been, be assured it's through unfamiliarity rather than malice.


 * This might take some time to explain, and it might seem to be original research on the outset, but it's not, and I'll appreciate if you bear with me for the duration. I'm going to try to explain as if you don't know the first thing about the subject matter, so I apologize in advance if that comes across as condescending. Far from my intention, I just want to be thorough and clear.


 * Right. So. List of The Punisher comics. The purpose of this page is to easily distinguish between, identify, and, when possible, link to the pages concerning, the different comic book series starring The Punisher over the years. It's currently split up in between Ongoing Series--series that began without a fixed endpoint and typically continued for some time before ending or being cancelled, or are still continuing--and Limited Series, series that began with a fixed, typically very short, duration, and are usually tangential to the main and most prominent stories featuring the character. Four to six issue limited series are typical. This is how the article was organized prior to my interaction with it, and I have no issue with this arrangement, though it is somewhat problematic in and of itself. I'll elaborate on this more later.


 * The article also uses volume numbers to distinguish between the various series that have been published over the years. Volume numbers, in reference to comic books or magazines, exist as a manner of distinguishing between separate titles with identical names. Another alternative system is to refer to them by the year of their original publication: Ex. The Punisher (1987 series) as opposed to The Punisher v2/vol. 2. This is the system used on the titles of all linked-to articles, it appears, but not the List article itself. This is, again, how the article was organized prior to my interaction with it, and I again have no issue with this arrangement. Changing to a year-based system seems to have been suggested on the talk page in the past, but never implemented.


 * The root problem is with the series currently referred to as The Punisher: Purgatory. My contention is that that is not the name of the comic in question, and I've cited two sources from sites devoted to comic books, here and here, that refer to it simply as The Punisher. My own investigations confirm that the Purgatory subtitle neither exists on any of the title pages of the series, nor its indicia--copyright information frequently given higher preference when it comes to series nomenclature--making it Punisher vol. 4 or Punisher (1998 series), depending on how we choose to notate it. The indicia actually claims that it is Punisher vol. 2, but this is due to a persistent error on Marvel's behalf noted elsewhere and by another editor on the talk page: They erroneously listed the third series as vol. 1, and continued to count upwards from that point, rather than the true first two series. Because of many similar issues, Marvel stopped using volume numbers in an official capacity in recent years, putting the ISBN numbers directly in the indicia. However, they're still frequently used by fans and collectors for the sake of convenience. Regardless, that's besides the point, I'm just leading up to pointing out that the relevant series is currently listed as 'The Punisher: Purgatory vol. 2', and why the vol. 2 is understandable but incorrect, because there is no Purgatory anywhere on any relevant parts of the comic, and because there was never any Purgatory vol. 1.


 * Anyway, the reason this matters is because it's shifting all of the other numbers down by one. Because the correct vol. 4 is not included, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are referring to different series than other sources are, and causing confusion and misinformation. The current series is listed as vol. 8 when it actually is vol. 9, etc. It's not a wording issue, but a numbering one, which is why I don't understand the difficulty I've been having. I would think this should be very simple, as it's not like there can possibly be room for most of the pitfalls that cause these kind of disputes, if you know what I mean?


 * Going to have to talk about users a bit more, sorry, it's relevant. As previously mentioned, the article's split into Ongoing and Limited, and the only expressed objection I received to my changes was that putting 'Purgatory' in the Ongoing section as Vol. 4 is incorrect because it's not an ongoing series. That's perfectly true and correct; however, it is from the same chain of titles as all the other 'The Punisher' titles. There was not another title called 'The Punisher' being published at the time, it fits between 3 and 5, regardless of length, and it could cause confusion if one section jumps a number without explanation. In addition, the first series was indisputably a limited series, it in fact says "The Punisher was a five-issue comic book limited series" right there at the beginning of the ongoing section. So I proposed we either move both volumes 1 and 4, both limited series, to the limited series section, or keep them both in the ongoing section. 1-9, or 2-3, 5-9. Either's acceptable, depending on whether we're aiming for clarity or correctness. The proposition was ignored, and it again went 1-3, 5-9, and then, incorrectly, 1-8. Alternately, we could just change to ([year] series) rather than volume numbering, and put only ongoings in the ongoing section without worrying about skipping numbers. As the first series was the first solo series the character received, however, it does make good sense to keep it in there even if it isn't strictly correct. I'm rambling now though, this is just me explaining that I'm open to a great deal of compromise but that I think my core contention, that 'Purgatory' is in fact vol. 4/(1998 series), is incontestable. This position appears to have been put forth on the talk page by multiple previous editors, but all I see is a response by Fortdj33, followed by no further discussion. It does not appear to me to be consensus, but simply people who never came back to argue. To clarify, any IP addresses commenting on the talk page in May or June of this year are me. I signed in when I realized that this would take time to sort out and not benefit from such confusion.


 * In addition, I did several things to clear up the List page and the series pages from 4 to 9, that have been repeatedly reverted without regard for changes made unrelated to the numbering/nomenclature issue. I've expressed this repeatedly, and been ignored repeatedly. I'm not particularly inclined to be calm and negotiate when any contribution I make is repeatedly annulled without discussion, but even so, some blame is likely mine for letting such actions anger me and predispose me to courses of action other than calm discussion. Such changes include expanding the entries for Purgatory, vol 5 (currently 4 on the list), and vol 6 (currently 5 on the list), but I believe those changes finally stuck. Additionally, changing the PunisherMAX entry on the list to 'was' rather than 'is', since it has ceased publication. In addition, I added the previously uncredited co-writer to the Purgatory page (the name really should be changed, but I don't really care), and cleared up the titling on the 2004 series page (vol 7, currently vol 6 on the list). It later changed its title to 'The Punisher: Frank Castle MAX' with issue 66 (of 75), and the page referred to it as 'The Punisher: Frank Castle', and 'The Punisher MAX', both of which are technically incorrect and shouldn't be used in any official capacity. It's now there as a 'sometimes referred to' note, which is where it should be, rather than as listed which issues comprise the collected volumes.


 * Anyway, that's all incredibly picayune and boring. The point is they were all repeatedly reverted along with the numbering, no matter what I said on the talk page. My edits appear to be there now, the incorrect numbering is only on the locked List page, but I'm quite surprised they've lasted this long. As I've said repeatedly, I'd be much more inclined to discussion if anyone had respected my contributions enough to only remove the parts which offended them, rather than reverting everything with little-to-no explanation. I think that's it, and I still can't believe I'm writing this much about a number or six, but there you go. Snakebyte42 (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon, for your attempt to calm things down, so that we can debate the content being disputed, instead of taking things personally. I brought the issue here, because Snakebyte42 was directing comments at me personally, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. And instead of discussing things on the talk page after he was first reverted, he just kept reverting back to his POV. If he had presented the above information before edit warring, we may have been able to reach a consensus before now. But as it is, please allow me to address the points that he has made.

Regarding the List of The Punisher comics, the article was cleaned up by me and a few other editors last year, which in itself was not without some controversy. The current format has Ongoing series and Limited series in separate sections, with the entries in the Ongoing series section listed by volume. These volume numbers do not correspond to the indicia on the comics themselves, rather to their order chronologically, because of errors that Marvel Comics has made in titling some series "Punisher" and others "The Punisher". Therefore, the volume numbers were arbitrarily assigned, based on the order of Wikipedia articles about ongoing Punisher titles.

The main issue here, is with the placement of The Punisher: Purgatory. It was placed in the Limited series section, because it was never intended to be more that a 4 issue limited series. However, the title is misleading, because the incicia for the comic simply said "The Punisher". It was also labeled as vol. 2, because it was the second mini-series with that title at the time, the first being the original Punisher mini-series from 1986. This was an error on Marvel's part, because the first ongoing series was also labeled vol. 2, as it was a continuation from the first limited series. That continuation, is why the first limited series was listed at the beginning of the Ongoing series, in the list of Punisher titles. And even Snakebyte42 concedes that "as the first series was the first solo series the character received, however, it does make good sense to keep it in there even if it isn't strictly correct."

Now, as I pointed out on the talk page last year, the 1995 series is referred to as v3, because it was the third ongoing series titled "Punisher or "The Punisher". I understand that The Punisher: Purgatory would chronologically be vol. 4, but since it was never intended to be an ongoing series, and it was not a continuation of the 1995 series, it does not belong in the Ongoing series section. Therefore, the 2000 series was listed as the fourth ongoing series with that title, which led directly into the 2001 series as the fifth, and the first MAX series was the sixth (before it was retitled The Punisher: Frank Castle), even though the MAX titles are not considered to be part of mainstream Marvel continuity. This may seem like original research, but it is based on the information presented in the various articles about Punisher titles on Wikipedia.

Again, these volume numbers are completely arbitrary, but they are designed to present which Punisher titles were considered ongoing and which were limited, in an encyclopedic way for people who may not be familiar with The Punisher. It has been suggested that we drop the volume labeling system, and use a system solely by publication year, but since there was never a consensus on that suggestion, I have strived to maintain the current format. That's why I initially reverted the changes, and asked for discussion per WP:BRD, but an edit war broke out before any discussion took place. I apologize for my part in that, and I hope that we can use this discussion to come to a consensus about how to properly display the information on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I presented this information repeatedly. You ignored it. Please stop veering from fact to make yourself look good. Whether a series is ongoing or limited has nothing to do with which volume it is. Volume simply refers to the chronological order of series titled 'Punisher' (or 'The Punisher). This 'Purgatory' title appears nowhere, is cited nowhere, and simply does not seem to exist. Volume numbers are not arbitrary and you do not get to invent them. They are a common metric used by fans and collectors to determine which series is which, not an arbitrary metric made by Fortdj33 to organize Wikipedia with. Whether something was 'meant to be an ongoing or limited series' has nothing to do with its volume number or its name. And even if it did, your list would still be incorrect, because as you just admitted it is starting from the volume 1 LIMITED SERIES. I have no idea where you've come up with this crazy idea, but just because something only has four issues does not magically produce a subtitle or make it any less called 'The Punisher' than the eight other series, regardless of duration, also called 'The Punisher'. I said this on the talk page as well. You ignored it. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above in a mix of discussion about article content (which is good) and discussion about user conduct (which is not appropriate on the dispute resolution noticeboard.) Both of you, please stop talking about other users. Just stop. In particular, don't make excuses like "Going to have to talk about users a bit more, sorry, it's relevant" No. It is not. I don't care what your reasons are. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how the objections my edits were met with, that I attempted to address, is not relevant? I was not complaining about conduct, I was addressing the history of the dispute, which seems to be rather the point of a dispute resolution board; not 'he said X, whine whine, my feelings are hurt', but 'I proposed X change and it was met by this user with this criticism, which I shall now address:'. What on earth else should I be talking about? And what kind of response are you expecting here, exactly, after telling us to 'stop'? 'Stop' is not productive. 'Stop' is not a path forward. 'Stop' does not leave either party satisfied, it simply leaves us stopped. I do hope you have something better to say than that. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So, you came to a noticeboard that says right at the top "This page is for resolving content disputes." and you are now telling one of the regular clerk/mediators that you know what "the point of a dispute resolution board" is better than he does? No, we don't care about "the history of the dispute" This noticeboard is for discussing article content, not "the history of the dispute". Please stop discussing anything other than article content.


 * You ask "What on earth else should I be talking about? And what kind of response are you expecting here?" Which part of "This noticeboard is for discussing article content, not user conduct" are you having trouble understanding? It's a simple idea. You think the article should say one thing, Another editor thinks the article should say something else. So you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and talk about the content of that particular part of the article. Not about other editors, Not about the history of the dispute. Not about anything other than article content. And especially not about the many reasons why you believe that the rules about only discussing article content don't apply to you.--Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Snakebyte42, I realize that we got off on the wrong foot with each other, but once again I ask you to please stop taking this personally! This discussion is designed for us to resolve a content dispute, regardless of who started it, or what you think was ignored. At this point, our past edit warring is irrelevant. The only way to resolve this, is for us to set aside our differences, and compromise on presenting the information in a way that both of us can live with...


 * Therefore, I propose that we do away with the volume numbers, and simply present the Punisher titles on the list by year of the series. That means including the 1986 series in the Ongoing section as an exception, because it was the first series titled "The Punisher". All of the other articles about Punisher titles that include (xxxx series) in the title would remain there, and any volume information can instead be included on their respective articles. As for The Punisher: Purgatory, I still think that it should remain in the Limited series section, regardless of its volume number. Even if the Purgatory title is arbitrary, that title was clearly given to that article, in order to differentiate it from the other series. The List of The Punisher comics was meant to be just that, a list to help others find information about the various Punisher titles on Wikipedia. Any volume information for The Punisher: Purgatory can be included on that specific article with the appropriate references. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You realize that's not a compromise at all, don't you? I've said over and over again that the only thing that matters is that Purgatory receives its correct, non-arbitrary title, which I have provided sources to back up, and that as a corollary, if volume numbers are used, they are correct. I don't care about whether you use years or volume numbers, I don't care which are ongoing or which are limited, and I don't even understand why you want the one limited series but not the other in the 'ongoing' section. However, I think I see an unrelated compromise in regards to that, as that seems to be where your objections are stemming from. Why not simply change the 'Ongoing Series' header to 'Main Series'? This seems to remove your objection to including Purgatory in that section. EDIT: Oh, and all of the article titles currently have (xxxx series) in them, and while it would be nice if Purgatory's title was changed to reflect that, I don't really care about that either. It's clearly a pervasive enough informal title to get some use. By the same token, I wouldn't mind if the article title of the MAX series was 'The Punisher MAX', as long as the correct title information is on the page.


 * EDIT: It's possible I've misunderstood what you're proposing: You may need to disregard the 'that's not a compromise at all' bit. Did you mean to list Purgatory under Purgatory, or under 1998 series? And for that matter, why does what past editors have done without leaving sources or reasons matter at all? Your entire argument seems to hinge on protecting erroneous information because you assume the people who did it had a reason to do it, and therefore it should remain. I've demonstrated that the title is incorrect. I don't see why it should remain differentiated, and 'because past editors differentiated it' is not a sufficient argument to convince me. This should be based on fact, or as close to fact as we can get, not assumed intent.


 * Guy Macon, while I apologize for speaking heatedly, that was far from what I meant. You don't want to talk about user conduct--fair enough, I genuinely misunderstood the relevance of the history of the dispute. I thought it essential to your understanding of the dispute to explain what has been discussed between users about article content, I saw a major distinction between complaining about user conduct. However, what annoyed me was writing all that out and for nothing to come of it but picking at how I said things, and not addressing what I said, as that is what has been pushing my buttons this entire time. In the heat of the moment it seemed to me like that was you closing the discussion and that the issue would remain unresolved. Obviously I misinterpreted that. Snakebyte42 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The goal of mediation is to help the two of you to reach an agreement, and long experience has shown us that the best way to do that is to focus on article content, and to force everyone involved to have a calm, rational and logical discussion about the article content and nothing else even if they recently had a screaming match on the article talk page. I know its hard, but its the best way.


 * Getting back to the subject at hand, I want to see references to what the publisher calls the comics. Normally we ask for links, but if both of you have a copy of a comic in front of you and agree on what the wording on the cover is, that's good enough. In theory I could go to a comic book store and verify the claims. So let's start there. What does the cover say? Does the interior say something different? Does the publisher's catalog call it something else? How does the publisher's catalog describe multiple comics -- series, volume, or what? If the publisher is silent, do third party sellers have a standard way of describing things? Lets find the sources, use the exact phrasing the sources use when we can, and try to figure out what is best when the sources are unclear or conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can do you one better, and upload images of the comic in question. I'll just do the final issue, and assume you can take my word that the other three follow suit, but I can provide those as well if necessary. Here is the cover, and there's a smaller image of the cover of a previous issue in the page for The Punisher: Purgatory. Here is the interior credits and indicia. It does say Purgatory with the interior credits, but that is in reference to the title of the story, not the series. Pretty much all comics have titles for individual stories or story arcs, and such a thing doesn't change the title of the series or series would have no common name at all, it just happens that in this particular instance there is one four-part story arc and only four issues of the series. The cover and the indicia, the part of the interior concerned with the name of the series, agree that it is simply 'The Punisher'.


 * Of course, it also says Volume 2, but I believe we're in agreement that this is an error on the part of the publisher; many such errors exist, due to publishers not often keeping the best records about series they've published, which is why--to answer your next question--the publisher no longer uses volume numbers on its current publications, referring instead to ISBN numbers in the indicia. The publisher does not maintain a catalog that goes back that far, to my knowledge, and I have no idea what it was solicited as at the time. They're primarily concerned with selling new series, not with organizing old ones, so they simply use the name and issue number of series, and no longer distinguish between past volumes in their promotional material. The series is too old for there to be any online records by third party distributors of what it was sold as at the time, as far as I'm aware, and said distributors are rarely standardized. In any event, I've never found a reliable online source for archived solicitations or sales information that goes back before late 2002, and this was 1998: I'm sure there's people selling old comics, but not old pages of the comic being sold when it was new. The most reliable source in these matters, in my experience, are online comics databases uninvolved with any publishers or in selling comics, two of which I've linked to. I can't speak to who maintains them or their policies or anything like that, just to how exact and complete I've found them to be in the past.


 * Putting volume numbers aside for the moment, I now have one primary source and two secondary sources that establish this series to be named 'The Punisher'. Adding the year, to be cognizant of other identically titled series, makes this 'The Punisher (1998 series)'. If you then gather all the series titled 'The Punisher' or 'Punisher' and order them chronologically, this becomes the fourth, which is why I believe it should be referred to as Volume 4 if volume numbers are used, disagreeing with the Volume 2 on the actual issue. Regardless, it is clearly not 'The Punisher: Purgatory Vol. 2' as currently listed in the article, because there is no 'Purgatory', and for that name to be correct under how volumes normally work, there would need to be a preceding The Punisher: Purgatory Vol. 1, of which there is not. If you're morbidly curious, the actual printed volume numbers go 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, not specified, not specified, not specified, which is why I think it's safe to disregard them. Snakebyte42 (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Snakebyte42, your example of the actual volume numbers, is exactly why I said that they were arbitrary. The current volume numbers were designed, for people not familiar with The Punisher to see the progression of his various ongoing series. However, this whole debate has been because a few IP editors and I have been trying to preserve the information as it is currently presented on Wikipedia. You and I both clearly want the information presented as accurately as possible, but you went about changing it the wrong way.

Therefore, there are apparently two issues here. If you look at the talk page for List of The Punisher comics, you'll see that the current header of "Ongoing series" was decided on in place of "Primary series", when the list was reorganized a couple years ago. That's primarily why the idea of moving The Punisher: Purgatory to that section was rejected. If we do away with the volume numbers as suggested, then that section will need to be retitled, in order for it to contain all of the volumes of comics books simply named "The Punisher".

The Punisher: Purgatory being a misleading title, is a separate issue. Any proposal for changing the title of that article, should have been brought up on the talk page of that article, before changing it on the list of Punisher titles. If the article is changed to "The Punisher (1998 series)", then the list and template can be changed to reflect it that way. But as is stands now, The Punisher: Purgatory does not belong in a list of ongoing Punisher titles.

So I think that for both of us to be satisfied, the changes need to be made to The Punisher: Purgatory article first, with the references that you provided above. Then, for that information to be accurately presented on the List of The Punisher comics, the list will have to be reorganized, to either identify all titles named "Punisher" or "The Punisher" in one section, or for ALL of the limited series to be moved to the proper section chronologically. Whether that is best done with or without volume numbers is still debatable. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, they're not arbitrary. Because Marvel made errors does not mean that you get to. Volume numbers are chronologically applied to comics or magazines with identical titles. You're also continuing to be hypocritical. The 'Ongoing Series' header by your admission already contains a limited series, the series we both agree is the first volume. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and because information is currently on wikipedia says nothing about its veracity. Telling me I 'went about making changes the wrong way', etc., is, again, a discussion of user conduct. If I can't do that, neither can you.


 * As I've already said, I have no objection with strict adherence to the Ongoing Series heading, providing that the adherence is indeed strict, and Vol. 1 is moved out of there as well. You seem disinclined to do this, applying special rules to one thing but not the other, which is unacceptable. However, we do both agree that having the Ongoing Series only have volumes 2-3 and 5-9 is confusing and lacking clarity, so perhaps a change is for the best. I'm fine either way, providing vol. 1 is treated the same way as Purgatory.


 * I've also said that I have no issue with the title of the article being something other than the title of the series, provided the information provided in the article regarding the title of the series is correct. However, if that's what you say needs to be done, then fine, whatever. I have not been arguing about what the title of any article should be, but about the correct title of the series as presented in these articles. I also have no opinion regarding whether to use years or volume numbers in the List article, provided all series are titled correctly. My personal preference is slightly biased towards volume numbers, but if it's going to be a point of contention then years are absolutely fine by me.


 * EDIT: I noticed you changed the title of the Purgatory article. I've changed the template to reflect it.Snakebyte42 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be a bit swamped with work for the next couple of days and won't have time to look at the issues above in detail (I invite any other Mediators who have time to jump in and help) but I would like to express my appreciation for the effort both of you are making to focus on content. I know it is hard, and I caution you about slipping back into talking about other editors, but you are doing a good job. Try to do the same elsewhere on Wikipedia while we are working on this; a personal comment elsewhere can poison what we are trying to accomplish here. If you really want to get into a fight, please wait, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Too late. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

ANOUNCEMENT: Because of recent behavior at Wikiquette assistance I am recusing myself from this discussion. I no longer believe that I can remain impartial and unbiased on this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, both of the posters here (F and S) are way too verbose. Please read WP:TLDR. If you cannot succinctly make your point in 3 sentences, that is a good indicator you don't have  a point to make. Second, as far as the List article goes: Top priority is simply utilizing the titles that are presented on the covers;  if there are two or three different interpretations of what the name should be within the list, give both options, with a brief explanation for both viewpoints ... use footnotes or parenthetical comments to explain the ambiguities. No need to pick one or the other: supply both. Regarding "year" vs "volume" listing: it is okay for a List to contain two lists covering the same items, as seen in List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union, so consider that as an option. --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: As per this WQA discussion, the matter seems largely resolved, but I'll leave this page open for another 48 hours or so in case there's any further discussion. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)