Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5

Intercultural Open University Foundation


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

The other party has deleted a report of using an unaccredited degree by someone misrepresenting himself as a psychologist, based upon such postgraduate degree. The reference is based upon reliable sources.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Possible conflict of interests for Thomanq (since he/she writes very favorably of this unaccredited university.)

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

I have discussed the problem on the discussion page for the article.


 * How do you think we can help?

End the edit warring by passing independent judgment.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University Foundation 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 neutral in this matter. I've read the talk page discussion and the linked webpage and committee hearing report. I do not believe the inclusion of the information as to Edward Chan to be appropriate in the Intercultural Open University Foundation article. From a close examination of the report I find nothing that suggests that the Conduct Committee of the British Psychological Society based its decision on a finding or belief that the Foundation was generally nonaccredited. To the contrary, the Society's June 6, 2001, letter to Chan expressly says that it was warning him that he was not qualified to practice because his qualifications were not accredited by the Society, i.e. the British Psychological Society, because there was no element of supervised practice in those degrees. It said nothing about his qualifications lacking general third-party accreditation. That can only be implied from the fact that the opinion refers to the Foundation as not being included in the International Handbook of Universities or the World List of Universities, but that must necessarily be an implication or analysis since the opinion nowhere draws any conclusion from that lack of inclusion. Such an implication or analysis would violate the no original research policy of Wikipedia in general, but that is especially true in a primary source such as this report. Moreover, there is nothing in the report which says or suggests that Chan was misled by the Foundation about the nature of the degrees it offered. There is also nothing in the report which ties the Foundation's findings about Chan to any wrongdoing or unethical action of the Foundation or to any action of the Foundation which would suggest that the Foundation engages in the usual practices of diploma mills. In that light, at the very best the Chan case could only be used in the Foundation article as evidence of the fact that the Foundation is not accredited by the British Psychological Society, which is unnecessarily trivial, and of the fact that it is not listed in the International Handbook of Universities or the World List of Universities, which can better be sourced directly from those UNESCO publications. Regards, 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The IOU is not accredited anywhere. There is no discussion about that. The issue is to what extent the IOU by being based in the EU, implies that its diplomas have any value beyond that of the paper. As such it is illustrative that someone claiming/using a title bestowed by IOU is reprimanded. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being a European perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't the fact that it is clearly not accredited anywhere end the discussion about whether or not its degrees have any weight? How does "being based in the EU" suggest that their unaccredited degrees have more weight than they would if they were issued by, say, an unaccredited institution in the United States? Please understand that I'm not challenging you, but just asking for information about something that I might well be ignorant about. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is rather the opposite. Unaccredited organisations are rather rare in the EU. Under Bologna, accreditation in one member automatically extends to others. This together leads to the automatic inference for many that any degree from an EU institution is indeed accredited. The few non-accredited institutions are therefore likely to get respect for the degree that goes way beyond what it would (and should) have. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Transporterman has misinterpreted the quotes. It says "accredited or recognized by the Society". Imho, the Society does not confer accreditation, but only recognition. Accreditation is a matter of being granted according to the laws of the country wherein the university lies, in this case: for the Netherlands accreditation may only be granted by NVAO (The Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization). After being accredited by NVAO, the Dutch Department of Education may recognize the accredited curricula, provided that they are considered effective and efficient by the Department. So, for a Dutch university accreditation may only be obtained from NVAO and national recognition may only be granted by the Dutch Department of Education. In respect to the IOUF being accredited in the US, there is no mention of it in the CHEA accreditation database, nor in the database of the US Department of Education. So, it lacks Dutch and US accreditation, and it claims to have offices in the Netherlands and the US. I think that the Society recognizes by default legally accredited education from the countries of the Bologna process, perhaps does it worldwide, since it mentions the International Handbook of Universities. So this boils down to: if Mr. Chan had a nationally accredited postgraduate degree in psychology, he could claim that he fulfills the requirements for being a psychologist in the United Kingdom. The postgraduate degrees obtained from IOUF did not help him with that, since they are nowhere legally accredited, they are not recognized by the Dutch Department of Education and the Society did not recognize the IOUF as fit for conferring such degrees. If it had a Dutch accreditation, it would have automatically been recognized by the Society. This is why I said that the arguments used by Thomanq are misleading, since the Society does not grant accreditation, but operates by examining the lawful national accreditation status as granted inside certain countries, like the Netherlands and the US by their nationally recognized accrediting bodies. The quote could be rephrased as "it is neither recognized by the Society nor accredited" (as in national accreditation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Arnoutf: But the article already clearly establishes that it is not accredited. Why is further proof needed, especially since there is nothing in the BPS report which ties the Board's findings about Chan to any wrongdoing or unethical action of the IOU or to any action of the IOU which would suggest that the Foundation engages in the usual practices of diploma mills and Chan made no claim that he was somehow misled by the IOU's failure to be accredited? I fail to see what this adds to the article that is not there already. Instead, its inclusion would appear to unfairly cast disrespect on the IOU by implying that it was somehow responsible for Chan's situation, which simply is not supported by the sources in that case. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong for two independent reasons. First, the source, the BPS report, says what it says when it says "accredited or recognized by the Society". To interpret "by the Society" to mean or imply something other than simply "by the Society" or that "by the Society" really means they're just accepting the accreditation decisions of other accreditation institutions is a prohibited analysis of a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY. Second, and perhaps more significantly, an examination of the Society's current website and its prior websites archived at the Internet Archive clearly shows that the Society has been engaging in accreditation of psychology postgraduate training programs according to its own standards for accreditation since long before this case was heard in 2005. (According to this publication, they've been doing so since the early 1970s, though that fact is not particularly significant for the current discussion.) Again, nothing in the Chan report indicates that the Society's decision was made upon the basis of IOU's general lack of accreditation. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC) PS: One other minor clarification in reference to my supposed misinterpretation of the "quotes." I did not merely rely upon the quotes given in this and the article talk page discussion; I downloaded and thoroughly read the entire BPS report. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Chan may have expected that the institute was accredited, as diploma mills are relatively rare in Europe. In any case, I don't have a strong opinion about the Chan issue, although I share Tgeorgescu's worry that Thomanq is not neutral as he removes a person who got into trouble claiming any value of the diploma, while he adds notable "alumni" therewith putting a lot of emphasis on the value of the diploma. (I am actually not fully convinced this should have gone to dispute resolution already as the interaction remains fairly civilized so far). Arnoutf (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To TransporterMan, thank you for your balanced opinion. I am concerned at the temper of discussion relating to this and other issues in this entry and troubled by the passion with which Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu pursue their arguments. We appear to have a determination to discredit IOUF on our hands, which is either a non-neutral and biased approach to this entry or perhaps even a conflict of interest. I’m not sure what’s going on in this situation -- it seems to me there should be no need for any heat here.


 * Although the issue of speedy deletion arose in 2009 a decision was made to retain the entry, a move which confirmed notability. It seems, then, that we are therefore arguing about the nature of the notability.


 * If we look at the history of the Discussion on the IOUF entry, it is evident that Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu have consistently inserted negative comments about the Foundation, and just as consistently deleted positive references. For example, the listing of a notable graduate, Dr. Gulab Kothari, who is editor of the Rajasthan Patrika Publishing Group in India, was recently deleted almost soon as it was posted. Dr. Kothari’s organization provides news and information to 2.4 million Hindi-speaking people in India, the world’s second largest country by population. How Dr. Kothari could not be deemed notable is indeed mysterious, as have been the deletions of all other notable faculty and graduates, many of whom also have impressive credentials. One IOUF graduate is carrying on Mother Theresa’s work with the Dalits of India. Not notable? These are notable people within the definition of Wikipedia’s criteria for notability and, with respect, I contend that these deletions represent biased behavior which prevents readers from obtaining factual information on the Foundation’s work on the global landscape.


 * Regarding the issue of accreditation, although the IOUF has administrative offices in the Netherlands and the United States of America, it does not seek to confer a Dutch or American degree. In fact, it is a small global learning organization serving the needs of a very unique clientele: people wishing to obtain post-graduate learning and accreditation that will help them more effectively focus their lives on improving the living conditions of the world’s impoverished people. It attracts brilliant and selfless people like Bremley Lyngdoh and Gulab Kothari and, yes it attracted Edward Chan.  This has happened at other academic institutions as well, and while it is distressing and unfortunate, it is not, contrary to what has been said here, due to any fault of the IOUF.


 * IOUF does not seek the NAVO accreditation or a specifically Dutch (dr) degree and so it is puzzling that Arnoutf and Tgeorgescu have inserted into the entry, at numerous junctures, the fact that the Foundation has not obtained the right to offer these strictly Dutch designations. Should the entry also note that IOUF has not been accredited by the Ministries of Education of France, Spain, Germany, India, America, Australia and every other country in the world as well? To what purpose? Forgive me, but this strikes me as narrow-minded and petty and, with true respect for all concerned in this discussion, it limits our consideration to issues of geography.


 * IOUF’s outlook is global, not country-specific, and it has the legal right of a registered foundation to offer a PhD degree. I understand as well that efforts are now and always have been ongoing to maintain quality and integrity in delivering a world class learning experience for learners. It may not look like a standard-issue university and indeed it is not. It is something outside of the basic definition of what a university is and it offers opportunities to advance knowledge and understanding across cultural barriers and beyond the identity of almost every university functioning in the world today. It is not surprising this effort should be misunderstood but it is somewhat surprising that it should be attacked with so much vigor and animosity.


 * I appreciate TransporterMan’s opinion on the matter of Edward Chan and I would like the debate opened up to include this thorny issue of non-Dutch accreditation as well as the inclusion of notable graduates and faculty. I, for one, welcome full and generous debate on the issue with inviduals who seek an honest recording of the IOUF's position in the world and I look forward to further discussion. It seems to me that the point should not be to diminish anyone's reputation here but rather to light the way to greater understanding, since that would appear to be the purpose of a project as vast and inclusive as what Wikipedia strives to be.


 * Thank you.Thomanq (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have a conflict of interests, I just spotted an unaccredited university which has to be labeled as unaccredited by Wikipedia, since it has no accreditation worthy of that name. Any other option would mean misleading the readers of Wikipedia. There are reliable sources calling it as having "dubious professors with dubious titles" and a Dutch language article detailing its educational activities, which basically says that the IOUF is nowhere recognized. Thomanq is pleading the cause of the IOUF and this is clearly defined as a conflct of interest (as in self-promotion and promotional article production on behalf of clients). The IOUF has no special right of conferring a PhD degree, i.e. not more than me of Arnoutf; it is just that such degree is not protected by Dutch laws so no Dutchman would breach any law by granting such degree. Such degree simply does not officially exist in the Dutch educational system (except as legally granted in foreign countries). Instead, the title doctor (dr.) is protected by Dutch law and it is illegal for a Dutch organizations to confer it without being accredited by NVAO and recognized by the Dutch Department of Education. So, technically, IOUF PhD graduates which sign as Dr. ... commit an illegal act, since they are entitled to use neither the title doctor nor the shortcut dr. nor the shortcut Dr.


 * An Iraqi newspaper writes "Another university in Holland dispensing diplomas is the Intercultural Open University, which is not a diploma factory but neither a normal university. This university is deeply engaged with religious issues, as are many fake universities, and on issues such as peace or the environment. It cooperates with a wide variety of similar institutes in Russia, India, Taiwan, Japan and other countries. Students from poor countries might pay 300 dollars, but Europeans over 10,000 dollars." Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I probably have more right to confer a PhD degree, as I am a tenured assistant professor on one of the Dutch universities, and (have) serve(d) on PhD supervision, so my signature is actually on recognised PhD diplomas ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, Thomanq, to set up a new resolution request regarding issues other than the Chan matter please feel free to do so, but I feel this current request should be limited to the original one presented. I am, frankly, somewhat concerned about the interest that you display in the IOUF in your final paragraph, above. The primary focus of every editor working here at Wikipedia must be what's best for Wikipedia, not what's best (or worst) for the subjects of the articles in Wikipedia. What's best for Wikipedia is basically, if somewhat mechanically, defined by the verifiability policy. Editing with a view toward promoting or discrediting the subject of an article is strongly discouraged and in some cases forbidden. Since you are a relative newcomer, before you do much more editing here, let me recommend that you read my Advice to New Users essay and read all the linked material. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you TransporterMan, I appreciate your guidance and information and I will do my best to learn and comply with the expectations here. The understanding and patience of all concerned is appreciated. I’ve waded in now and I guess my research has thrown up a few questions in my mind about some of the points that have been made. I'm wondering about a number of issues and I throw them out for consideration.
 * 1. The reliable source TGeorgescu mentioned that initially hosted the “dubious professors with dubious titles” citation subsequently posted on its website a letter from the IOUF protesting the reference. http://www.cimea.it/default.aspx?IDC=2621. I see from the Discussion page that the original reference was voluntarily deleted by the originator but that that was not possible for the secondary reference, hence the publication of the protest letter. Does this not throw into question the reliability of the “dubious” nature of the IOUF professors?


 * 2. The Dutch language publication that TGeorgescu referenced as a source that indicated that the IOUF is unrecognized anywhere is a magazine that has made its name by focusing on debunking healers, gurus, therapists and prophets.( http://www.skepsis.nl/skepsis.html) I can find no information on its website that would qualify this, in my mind at least, as an organization that excels in issues pertaining to academic credentials, quality or qualifications. Nor can I can find any information on the IOUF website or in any of the references I’ve seen to the organization that would indicate it is an organization that is associated in any way with paranormal activities.


 * Also, just as a thought, the writer of the article which TGeorgescu has referenced in Skepsis, Rob Nanninga, appears to be primarily an expert on cults and new religions. I’ve taken a look at his online history and I see that he has developed an excellent track record on examining such issues as astrology and medical quackery. http://www.skepsis.nl/astrot.html and http://www.vof.se/visa-dutchquack.  Again though, I’ve been unable to find any information that would tie him to an expertise in education. This all strikes me as a disconnect and I wonder if this Skepsis article is in fact a reliable source?


 * 3. Re: illegal acts and PhD degrees. I would appreciate a deeper explanation here as I have to admit that I’m still not clear on this one. The IOUF has the legal right of a Foundation to provide a PhD degree and based on the references I’ve seen, it appears to be doing so with academic integrity and rigor on an international level. Witness the fact that the only two of its graduates that we have mentioned in this discussion, Bremley Lyngdoh and Gulab Kothari, are two highly notable individuals who have attained a substantial degree of success in the world. Success, in fact, that has enabled them to affect the lives of millions of people. Both sought and attained a PhD designation from the IOUF. So I’m not sure why this specifically Dutch issue is so important?  Apologies for not being au courant with the subtleties of Dutch or European academic regulations and procedures and I mean no disrespect. But this is a distinction that I am just not understanding.


 * 4. Re: Iraq newspaper and religious issues. I would like to understand more about this reference as well as my efforts have not turned up any references to any sort of religious dogma underpinning the IOUF or its pedagogy. I do get the sense that it is an inclusive organization that does does not take a Westerner's typical judgmental approach to the spiritual affiliations of others (for example, Gulab Kothari is an expert in the Vedas, a key body of literature in the Hindu religion). Would someone please pass along a citation for that one so I can check it out?


 * 5. Re: Cooperation with similar institutes in Russia, India, Taiwan, Japan and other countries. I have seen a disclaimer on the IOUF website that distances the Foundation from a large number of organizations that it says were fraudulently using the IOUF name for dishonorable purposes. The page also mentions that the IOUF has prosecuted a number of these organizations for same: http://www.ioufoundation.org/index.php/intercultural-open-university-foundation/disclaimer. Without having seen the Iraqi reference (or a Chinese, Russian, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch, or English translation of same) does this not raise questions about the reliability of the Iraqi newspaper as a source?


 * Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomanq (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think most of this should be disscussed on the talk page of IOU not here.(for what its worth re (1) I did not look into this (2) So you don't agree with the source or its POV, that is no reason per se why it is not reliable (3) The doctor title is protected in the Netherlands, it is illegal for a (non-accredited) Dutch based entity, agency or foundation to provide this title to anyone. Integrity and rigour for PhD degree usually comes down at writing a monography or set of papers that are at the level of peer reviewed scientific publications, the integrity of a PhD program also usually requires examination committees that hold full professors from other institutes. I find no indication of either for the IOU program; so stating it is a rigorous program lacks evidence in my view. That these people affected many lives is good for them but not necessarily a claim for notability (e.g. a journalist of the Sun newspaper affects millions of people every day) (4 & 5) I have not looked into this, but it seems a rather trivial point. Arnoutf (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rob Nanninga in Skepter did some research about this university. See e.g.:

"The dissertations that were written for the IOU are hardly available. Scientific journals have no interest for them. However, it is not excluded that there are also candidates who do serious work, this is just not what is required of them. An example is the booklet Sapphire: A Miracle Gem, which counts about 20,000 words. It was written by Dr. P.C. Lunia, the founder and president of Golden India Foundation, which wants to produce a rebirth of the old India. Lunia gives a list of all mysterious forces which are attributed to blue sapphire stones. The stone could render inoffensive astrological influences and prevent or heal illnesses. According to Lunia, there are many who could testify about that. He sells himself such stones. In 2002 prof. Hakemulder granted him a PhD for his research work."

- Rob Nanninga


 * Source: the article in question. About its paranormal/quack claims, it offers PhDs in Health Science (with possibilities in Alternative Medicine and Oriental Medicine), alternative medicine and oriental medicine being areas of study considered awkward if not pseudo-scientific by mainstream medical researchers.
 * Another source: The Dutch newspaper Trouw calls "phony professors" three teachers who are graduates of the International Open University and attached to the Dutch University College for Social & Cultural Studies from Deventer. According to the newspaper, they are assisted by a teacher, drs. Gabriela Gaastra, who claims to be in direct contact with Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Nepprofessoren doceren wetenschap ’in het verdomhoekje’ Trouw, January 24, 2008. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback


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

A large, ongoing debate on copyright ownership issues regarding the usage of the terms "reprint," "first serial rights," and "originally published in" to describe a few stories (specifically Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep) in a larger series called Heroes in Hell is occurring at its talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz argues that these stories were reprints from a prior magazine publication based on the sources he has found (some unreliable like this:, but others reliable like this: and the author of Gilgamesh 's own website). On the other hand, several other editors have argued that the use of the term "reprint" or saying that it is "originally published" in the magazine is misleading and wrongly suggests the original copyright is not owned by the series author, Janet Morris. Editors argue more accurately would be to say that the magazine had "first serial" rights. However, as of yet, no source points to the magazine having any such rights. They also argue that the story was intended to be written for the series, and as such, the magazine article is merely promotional, but not copyrighted. All of these arguments, however, lack sources. It is unclear whether it is standard for primary sources to provide this kind of "first serial" copyright information. Edit warring related to the above issues have occurred in the past week on both pages:, , , ,

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)




 * Guarddog2 has said she is Janet Morris, the author of the series (Wolfowitz has challenged this claim)
 * Bluewillow991967 has said she is Julie Cochrane, an author in the series
 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, UrbanTerrorist, Bluewillow991967 have engaged in very, very lengthy debates. UrbanTerrorist's comments have sometimes been unreasonable "...I think you have are in a Conflict of Interest situation. I have no idea why you would be in a conflict of interest situation, but your irrational actions leave me no other conclusion." or just uncivil, "Wikipedia is always inaccurate until people like me step in and fix the problems. There's just too many idiots who think that they know what they are doing, and they to edit things.".  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Bluewillow991967 have generally kept things cool, although it has been difficult to follow their arguments because of their sheer length and the number of other issues that are at hand with the article that I do not wish to discuss here.
 * I Jethrobot is me, and have done my best to remain neutral in this argument. I am, however, responsible for merging the individual Heroes in Hell book pages to the main series page due to a lack of notability of the individual books and general consensus to do so.  I do not claim to be have any expertise with the publishing process or of contract/copyright law.
 * NebY, Hulcys930, and Knihi are only involved in so much as they have offered fair opinions on the discussion page and appear to have an interest in the page. Hulcys930 has made some edits that were justifiably reverted by Wolfowitz, but the edits were made in good faith.
 * NebY, Hulcys930, and Knihi are only involved in so much as they have offered fair opinions on the discussion page and appear to have an interest in the page. Hulcys930 has made some edits that were justifiably reverted by Wolfowitz, but the edits were made in good faith.

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

This issue has been debated endlessly at the talk page, among many other topics. I attempted to search for sources myself to support either side and also tried to clarify Wikipedia policies to participants (see and Guarddog2's talk page.  No resolution is in sight after I have attempted to make multiple proposals that were intended to avoid the contentious issues about copyright, the contentions over the use of "reprint," and even the order in which the story was published. These proposals had some initial consensus, but in my opinion, were appropriately rejected by Wolfowitz because of sources that support that these stories were originally published in magazines, then later printed within the series.


 * How do you think we can help?

I would like some consensus to be formed about whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep 's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased. Also, this issue seems to have been blown way out of proportion by several parties involved (myself included), and I am hoping that we can all work on trying to stay a little cooler in the discussion. There are so many issues involved with Heroes in Hell, that I cannot conceivably address them all here with any brevity. But I would like some help resolving this (and perhaps other) so that we can prevent any possibility of ongoing edit warring.

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * I happen to have a story in one of the recent volumes, but that's not at issue here. What most of you think you know about publishing is incorrect, and perhaps an article should be written to address that.  You'll find that one of my three works for hire lists me as the (c) holder, even though Bill Fawcett and Assoc. owns the copyright.  Publisher made an assumption and went to print.  No one caught the error.  It is also common for excerpts/shorts to premier in a magazine before official publication.  In those cases, even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original, with permission secured per contract.  This happens all the time.  I am constantly amazed at how many WP editors and staff are completely clueless about publishing, and toss around sales figures, numbers and money and try to attach significance to them.  During the webcomic deletion debacle for example, one of the comments raised was that a certain comic "couldn't possibly have more than 100K readers," as if such a number were insignificant or not notable.  I will go on record here that the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues (such as regarding James Wesley Rawles, with hundreds of thousands of books in print, the go-to guy on disaster prep for CNN, the NYT, Fox, etc, whom a couple of editors persisted in WP:MOVINGTHEGOALPOSTS to try to claim was "not notable").  This is a repeat of that.  Janet Morris is most certainly VERY notable in SF, and well-respected.  Most, at the very least, of her works, are notable due to content, awards, sales figures, etc--certainly more notable than any of mine that have been contested and retained.  There is certainly a personal bias here, which may be simply stubbornness on the part of certain parties.  OrangeMike, despite his denials, has a very definite bias against her and should recuse himself from any discussion about her.  To accuse her of not being who she says she is without checking first is hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, and pompous. Is it possible some of her lesser known works should be combined?  Yes.  Should any article be stomped on and erased within hours because some WPean can't be bothered to either aid in improvement, or do a little fact checking (rather than any BS about "consensus" from people demonstrably ignorant of the subject)?  Not if this increasingly burdened and irrelevant bandwidth sink wants to retain any shred of credibility.Mzmadmike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original". So reprints can take place before the original publication!? And TV shows can be rerun before they originally air. Let's do the time warp again! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am Janet Morris (Janet E. Morris, Janet Ellen Morris) and I opened a new editor account only to deal with problems arising from the re-editing of a venerable series listed on Wikipedia entitled Heroes In Hell(TM). This series and franchise is my property and is a shared universe.  I am not certain that it is appropriate for me to be here, although Jethrobot says that it is, since I am the proprietor of the Heroes in Hell series. I do feel it inappropriate for WP to be questioning my copyrights, contracts, and the terms and conditions of those contracts, some generated two decades ago and previously uncontested by principals.  A debate over notability of various books in the series has morphed into one focusing on the articulation or purposeful obfuscation of the attribution of first serial rights, the deletion of a page called Rebels in Hell containing an award-winning story, and various disturbing and disparaging comments and unsupportable speculations from an editor called Wolfowitz:  "By the way, Morris' ownership of the Heroes in Hell property couldn't have stopped Silverbob from writing the story without Morris's approval. She doesn't own all stories set in Hell, after all, just the original details that trademark the franchise. What she really owns via the franchise are some infernal bells and whistles and the occasional designer pitchfork." that show an intent to decouple certain works from the series that generated them (award-winning or nominated works with first serials) and minimize the importance of the series, which is listed on WP as "low" as opposed to some stories commissioned by me from various authors and written for the series, such as "Gilgamesh in the Outback" listed as importance "mid."  Part of this dispute for me is whether or not editors with obvious, expressed biases (whether these biases count as COI in WP terms, I cannot say) against the series (or me) should recuse themselves from editing Morris/Hell pages. Please remove this comment if my participation is unwelcome. Guarddog2 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a neutral/clerk in this matter. The listing editor has limited the issues in this process to "whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased."
 * 1. Do the other disputants have issues which must be resolved here? If so, please state the issue as succinctly as possible and say how you think that we can help. Please keep in mind that the primary function of this noticeboard is to offer neutral analysis, comment, and mediation and that we have no power here to issue penalties, orders, or binding judgments.
 * 2. As for the copyright information issue:
 * A. In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?
 * B. Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?
 * C. Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)

Note to other neutrals: By requesting this clarification I am not "taking" or "reserving" this dispute to my care, but am merely trying to get some clarification for whoever eventually chooses, if anyone does, to work on it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. Or have I entirely missed the point?
 * Responding to the questions by TransporterMan that I am able to address:
 * In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?
 * While the diffs do not explicitly mention copyright, the talk page of Heroes in Hell certainly does. See this section and this section for the copyright disputes.
 * Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?
 * Yes. Wolfowitz had this to say in this diff...
 * There is no longer any dispute that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and its two sequels, as well as "Newton Sleep," the other award-nominated story, were not originally published in the HiH series, but instead first appeared in magazines.
 * ...whereas UrbanTerrorist has not agreed per this diff...
 * In your mind there may not be [any dispute]. In words that even you can understand, a story doesn't exist without a market. Benford and Silverberg could not have written those stories without Heroes in Hell as a market. My understanding from Janet is that they were given permission to take the stories to the magazine market by her. In the magazines there was a good sized blurb about the anthology. It's called advertising. Free advertising. Do you understand the concept?
 * ...and Knihi also responded to this saying the following in this diff, citing that we should not avoid differentiating between first serial rights & reprints, and also is concerned that the individual book articles were merged because of this concern over reprints (though there were other reasons why the merger occurred):
 * I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it? To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable."
 * Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)
 * I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, it's late and I may not be writing very clearly, but I feel I need to put on record that I don't think the listing editor should have identified this as a copyright issue. Another editor thought the question could be answered by looking at copyright, but that was a red herring.
 * The question is whether it's appropriate to use terms such as "reprinted" or "originally published in" to describe the work in question. Such terms may be at least neglectful and even denigratory. Yes, some books are collections of reprints, such as Best SF of the Year or Nebula Winners. Others such as Thieves World and its sequels contain work written for inclusion in those books. Such books are created with care in a creative process in which the individual authors knowingly collaborate, at the very least by working within parameters; they are not "mere" reprints.
 * Yes, works are sometimes published in periodicals, in full or in abridged form, before they're published in their final or originally intended form. That does not imply that the later publication merely reprinted the former. It's normal practice and good money if you can get it. NebY (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think this better captures the debate here. I apologize for not quite correctly describing the solution, but there is so much going on here, my head is in a fog whenever I begin to write about it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations.
 * The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike. Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article.


 * Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip José Farmer(1968)
 * Nightwings by Robert Silverberg (1969)
 * Ill Met in Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber (1971)
 * The Queen of Air and Darkness by Poul Anderson (1972)
 * The Word for World Is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973)
 * The Girl Who Was Plugged In by James Tiptree, Jr. (1974)
 * Houston, Houston, Do You Read? by James Tiptree, Jr. (1977)
 * Stardance by Spider Robinson and Jeanne Robinson (1978)
 * Enemy Mine by Barry B. Longyear (1980)
 * Lost Dorsai* by Gordon R. Dickson (1981)
 * The Saturn Game by Poul Anderson (1982)
 * 24 Views of Mt. Fuji, by Hokusai by Roger Zelazny (1986)
 * Gilgamesh in the Outback by Robert Silverberg (1987)
 * Eye for Eye by Orson Scott Card (1988)
 * The Last of the Winnebagos by Connie Willis (1989)
 * Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress (1992)
 * Down in the Bottomlands by Harry Turtledove (1994)
 * Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge by Mike Resnick (1995)
 * Oceanic by Greg Egan (1999)
 * Coraline by Neil Gaiman (2003)
 * The Cookie Monster by Vernor Vinge (2004)
 * Inside Job by Connie Willis (2006)
 * All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis (2008)
 * Palimpsest by Charles Stross (2010)


 * We're dealing with organized promotional editing on behalf of Morris and her works, and quite a few of the users involved are writers who have sold stories to Morris, or hope to do so.
 * Over the last few months, I've created dozens of articles concerning science fiction short stories and collections, and expanding scores if not hundreds of other articles concerning fiction in the genre. In virtually every case, if the information regarding original publication was not included in the existing article, I added it; and provided it in every article I created. Over many months and hundreds of articles, this has been entirely uncontroversial, because it represents basic encyclopedic information. The dispute here is manufactured for COI editors to disrupt normal editing and WP:OWN the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wolfowitz, you assert that canvassing has been taking place on Baen's Bar. I'm a member there, and have not seen such canvassing. Further, several searches have failed to show any sign of it. Would you please show which thread in which sub-conference contains such canvassing, since I have been completely unable to find it myself? Thanks - Luke Jaywalker (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike's Madhouse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a former moderator of Baen's Bar, I have to take issue with the totally unwarranted attempt to drag them into this mess. Personally, I'm a tad insulted that anyone would think that if there was actual canvassing of Baen's Bar there would be this poor a turnout. Don't drag them into this, it's not their mess. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. And if the thread should somehow disappear, I've got screencaps. Now do I get another apology? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For my not asking you where you were getting that, yes. For my thinking you're reaching looking for conspiracies, no. I feel you've overreacted to a simple issue of neutral point of view. The relevant stories were clearly developed in and for a shared universe and any neutral POV article would need to be consistent with that. Why that basic fact--that the stories were developed in and for a shared universe--seems to upset you I've no idea. All I can do is try to stay as civil as possible while we all look for some NPOV resolution. This will be my last comment on the matter. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I cannot debate armed with the intricate rules of WP, I want to bring up one point that has been missed that does relate to copyright. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a shared world or shared universe.  This is stated on the original Heroes in hell WP page and elsewhere and no one has ever contested it.  Shared worlds/shared universes are complicated collaborative undertakings and WP has an entire page on "shared universes/shared worlds.  I recommend that anyone evaluation my concerns over copyright look at the shared universe/shared world page on WP, then check to see that live links between Heroes in Hell series page and that shared universes/shared world pages do in fact exist today.  WP is an adequate source on how shared worlds work.  Additionally, here are quotes from Heroes in Hell with citations from accepted sources quotes on the HIH page:  "The shared world premise of Heroes in Hell is that all the dead wind up together in Hell, where they pick up where they left off when still alive.[1] The Encyclopedia of Fantasy states "In the long series of shared world adventures begun with Heroes in Hell, Hell becomes an arena in which all the interesting people in history can come together to continue the relentless pursuit of their various ends."[2] Brian Stableford commented that the series "adapted the backcloth of Dantean fantasy as a stage for violent adventures with ironic echoes of infernal comedy". [3]  See Heroes in hell series page for live links.


 * I have asked someone from the SFWA grievance committee to look at this issue, so I hope this discussion will stay open for at least a few days. My concerns that my copyright and franchise will be diluted by imprecise wording of rights issues remains:  a first serial (please see:  http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php) which is a one-time use, is not the primary source of a shared worlds piece of fiction:  the fiction is developed with the proprietor specifically for that shared world:  the publication in the shared world first edition for which the collaborative fiction was written is the primary source. Such a story is not the creation of someone acting independently.  The fact that both first-serialized stories from Heroes in Hell had copyrights for the first-serializing magazines does not change the fact that the stories were commissioned for a shared world series and under its rules and guidance, long before first serial rights were sold.  As for awards, awards ballots commonly take the first publication cited, if not asked to ignore it for a later one.


 * I hope this helps. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't about copyright, but even if it were, you're still misrepresenting an essential point. The Silverberg stories -- and as you've acknowledged elsewhere, there are three of them, not just one, all originally published outside your anthology series -- are based on his own original work, the novel Gilgamesh the King, conceived, written, sold, and published well before the Heroes in Hell franchise came into existence. The stories "cross over" between Silverberg's pre-existing copyrighted IP and your "franchise", and the claims made by you and your partisans denigrate his intellectual property and dilute his copyrights to at least as great an extent as you claim my comments do to yours. And what do you have in mind for the SFWA Grievance Committee to do? Griefcom exists only to handle disputes with "your editor, publisher, agent, or other writing-related business associate." I can't imagine they're going to be very impressed if you've shown up on their doorstep asking for them to expend their resources to take your side in a content dispute on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations." That is a total misrepresentation. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for a long time. I have never had any problems with any other editors in all of the years I've been here, until I set up the original Lawyers in Hell page and Orangemike decided to step in. I had never seen anyone break rules the way that Orangemike did. I think that he set a record that may never be beaten. I may have had some disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but compared to Orangemike, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looks like Miss Congeniality.

That said, the paragraph above is essentially incorrect. To the best of my knowledge the only Single Purpose Account is Guarddog2 which is Janet Morris herself. Much has been made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of the fact that I know Janet. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't take into account is that I'm a writer, and that I have the contact information for about three or four hundred writers in my electronic address book, and I'm in regular contact with about sixty or seventy of them.

Why would we cite Wikipedia policies, when the issue isn't a policy issue? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wants to decide things by consensus that are not properly the domain of consensus. This isn't an exact analogy, but the equivalent would be to try and decide the solution of a mathematical question. It's not the correct place to use consensus.

I would also like to see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prove where I've used invective. That would be interesting. Its an easy claim to make. As to the demonstrably false claims, what he means is that we wouldn't fall down and play dead to his superior knowledge.

"The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like 'reprint' or 'reprinted' to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike." The basic question is not simple. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not seem to understand that specialized fields use language in specialized ways. Writers and publishers have their own variation of English, as do Lawyers, as do Doctors. Because of this standard dictionary definitions are nonsensical when applied to those fields.

"Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by 'Gilgamesh in the Outback.' There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article." Since I haven't got the time to go over the list you've provided tonight, I really can't comment here. I'm behind enough as it is. However I would strongly suggest that you send the list to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, where you will get an unbiased opinion from experts in the field. You could also ask them at this point what the difference is between First Serial and Reprint, and again get Expert help. I would think the fact that you are getting so much opposition from people who know something about the field should be causing you to start wondering about what exactly is going on.

You might also want to consider your consistency. You aren't willing to accept information from Janet Morris, but you are willing to accept information from Robert Silverberg. You have a choice. Either accept information from neither, or both.

As to the book Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors which you've been quoting at length, I'd like to remind you that it is only accurate, if the information that the writer had is accurate. If she had been using the current Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback Wikipedia articles for research, it would be inaccurate. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this reference does not say "first published" or "originally published" for the Asimov's July 1968 publication of Gilgamesh in the Outback. It only says "published." The same holds true for the other sources cited by HulaballoWolfowitz. He/she has made a logical error in assuming that because the Asimov's publication is listed first (perhaps because it's in alphabetical order by title) or that it is listed solely, that this shows it was the first publication. As I have patiently tried to show, all the remains certain is both versions were published in July 1986. Under the rule of "Which is most reliable?" all that can be said is both publications appeared in July 1986.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap


 * I am going to ignore all the personal comments and conspiracy theories from Mr. Wolfowitz, since they do not relate to this narrow discussion, except one issue, and on that one topic I will explain why his comments are immaterial: the fact that the mythical Gilgamesh character AS A CHARACTER WHO IS ALIVE was written by Silverberg in another book; and I will add that Benford used a fictional character he had previously used, when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere:  previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion:  mythical characters cannot easily be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written.
 * On a much happier note, I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, who says earlier today in this debate, and I agree, "I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright.
 * So perhaps we have a happy ending. Guarddog2 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Characters cannot be copywritten"? Are you kidding? If anyone wondered why I've been skeptical about Guarddog2's claims to be a certain notable editor/author, that comment ought to demonstrate why I have my doubts. "Copywritten" isn't even a word. And just to flesh out the shorthand, the copyright protection afforded an author under the Copyright Act extends to the exclusive right to create derivative works based on the characters in their original works. And if you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll quit Wikipedia and write a series of torrid novels about the heated romance between Harry Potter and Sookie Stackhouse. Maybe they'll have a threesome with one of those blue dudes from Avatar. Or at least a love triangle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be very helpful if you would consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions. I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply.  It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly.  It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion.  You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Hulcys930 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * General apologies for being too quick and sloppy with delete key while seeking brevity. There was errata in the text above, that Mr. Wolfowitz caught.  Text should have read, and does read now:  when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere:  previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion:  mythical characters cannot be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected as written; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written.  Please see:  http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#P55_7616  Please also see on wipo:  http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm:  Is a character protected by copyright?  A character could be protected under copyright if it is an original expression of an author. Merchandising items such as toys, interactive games, books and clothing including characters can also be protected by intellectual property rights in certain circumstances, mainly copyright and trademarks, along with other areas of law. See the WIPO Report on Character Merchandising (Adobe PDF).


 * Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be to your benefit if you were to consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions (please do not attempt to portray this as a legal threat, since I am simply telling you how to obtain information that you lack). I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply.  It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly.  It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion.  You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Thank you.  Hulcys930 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * These definitions have already been presented in the talk page by Wolfowitz, where this contract publishing information by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and the Illinois State Bar Association delineates the definitions quite clearly (on pg. 15). Wolfowitz's comments appear to be consistent with those definitions, and any differences between his interpretation, common usage, and the legal terms seem unsubstantial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was simply going by the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz seems to continue to insist that the chronology of the printing of a story controls what constitutes a reprint regardless of the actual, legal definition of reprint and first serial. I have searched the talk page (by that I assume you mean the Heroes in Hell discussion page) and do not find any reference to the SFWA/Illinois State Bar definition posted by Mr. Wolfowitz.  Please give me a link so I can find what you are describing.  I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm not sure I understand where you say this information was posted.  Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wolfowitz added it in this diff, right after "SFWA's presentation." I'm sorry it's a long page, but it's there. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reference. As it plainly states in Mr. Wolfowitz' citation, "In SFWA's presentation "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts," online here, on page 15, "first serial" is limited in meaning to publication "prior to publication in book form," while "reprint" covers later publications in book form, including "collections."


 * 1) The Heroes in Hell volumes are not "collections" (which infers gathering various stories together, stories not connected to one another, after previous initial publication.)  All stories were written for and published in the "Hell" universe.


 * 2) Stories written in and for a specific shared universe, using the individual milieu and rules of the shared universe, with the collaboration of all authors of each volume, are NOT "collections."  Therefore, the "first serial" publication of Gilgamesh is in Mr. Asimov's magazine which was published contemporaneously with the initial Heroes in Hell publication in book form.


 * 3) The month of publication in a magazine that actually sends out that issue of the magazine some weeks before the "issue date" is completely irrelevant.


 * I am sorry this very simple definition is the subject of so much contention and I doubt this explanation will silence those who disagree. This issue is controlled solely by the legal contracts between the publishers and authors and is not subject to a "consensus" or "opinion."  (That's why contract lawyers make so much money and Contract Law is the most hated subject in law school.)  Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what I wrote in the Gilgamesh In the Outback discussion page: Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1986 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokzap (talk • contribs)

I agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution. I would also like to point out that it preserves notability, as I believe is appropriate, should one wish to recreate a distinct Rebels in Hell page. I also suspect he meant for this to be in the discussion section. :) Knihi (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution, which is appropriate as it lists both the first-serial publication in IASFM and the shared universe/shared world book publication in Rebels in Hell as having occurred in July 1986, which is the correct date and seems to fall within the Wikipedia rules. To do less would be incomplete.  As for Wolfowitz's assertion that the July, 1986 date is wrong for IASFM's publication, at worst this is fabrication, at best it would be original research if it could be proved.  I also urge all involved here to look at the Heroes in Hell series page where it says shared world and then go to the Wikipedia page about "shared universe/shared world."  Not even Wolfowitz has dared to claim that these books were not shared world volumes.  To be compliant with the shared world rules, no story could have been independently conceived and merely reprinted as a second serial. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, "Janet," you're providing easily disproved misinformation. For virtually the entire duration of its existence, IASFM has provided "on-sale" dates for each issue in the pages of the one preceding it. It still does. Here's a link to the online posting of the "next issue" page from the current issue . Here's a link to a Google scan for an issue from 1992 . Here's a pair of GScans from 1989 . While I can't turn up an online scan, I'll tell you that the June 1986 issue declared the on-sale date of the July issue to be June 3, 1986. You've just reported, from your personal knowledge of the book you edited, that the book itself actually went on sale in July. That should pretty much establish which came first. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting in a court of law, as in a statute of limitations regarding libel, whether the on-sale date or the publication date would be accepted.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

I disagree with the solution. The earlier agreed solution was a complete merge of all articles including all of the Heroes in Hell books and stories, and this is what I was trying to implement, and is what I think is still necessary. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of asserting which of two publications with the same month and year publication date appeared first, the burden of proof here is on Mr. Wolfowitz. In both the magazine and paperback distribution system at the time, publications with a month date of July could have been physically placed on a newsstand, mailed by subscription, or appeared at a bookstore prior to actual date of July 1. But which appeared first? And where? An advanced reading copy of Rebels in Hell could have been sent to reviewers before the Asimov's publication. A bookstore in Topeka might have received a carton of Rebels in Hell books in May. Who knows? Mr. Wolfowitz thinks he knows, but logically he has a heavy burden of proof here. For the purpose of the best scholarly accuracy, rather than expend useless energy counting demons on the head of pin, the better, and objectively least controversial solution is to state the best known facts. Both versions of Gilgamesh In the Outback have a July 1986 date. Move on.Dokzap (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.

Okay, here's what I think, as a neutral: In light of the foregoing, if the printing order can be established through reliable sources, then a locution which states something like "first printed in x, subsequently printed in y" is probably preferable (and would appear to have some consensus support here), but "originally published in x and reprinted in y" is in no way forbidden or improper because that is, indeed, what happened when that locution is taken in its common English sense. I have some doubt about whether the "printed ... printed" formula will, however, survive in the long run here, but it might. Whichever form is used must be established by consensus. (And at this point, I don't see any consensuses being particularly affected by the alleged canvassing, but if anyone feels differently then they need to, first, read the canvassing rule carefully to verify that what they're seeing falls within the Wikipedia definition of canvassing, then report it to administrator noticeboard/incidents [here's my shorthand version, but your interpretation may vary: soliciting third parties to join in a discussion in a substantial way: fine, soliciting them to come in and just say "me too": bad].) Finally, I was writing this response when Urban Terrorist posted his note about merger and didn't see it until it came up in the edit conflict. I express no opinion about that subject, except that I suspect that it may well be a case of consensus can change in the light of the fact that no one has mentioned it here until now and that merger might well just move the dispute to a single location rather than solving it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) The resolution of this dispute needs to center on Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, not on extraneous issues.
 * (b) As I previously noted, Wikipedia is not a contract, law review, publication copyright page, or other legal instrument and is not making legal representations by the particular wording it uses. Even if words have some specialized meanings in those contexts, if they have a generally-accepted English language meaning then that is the meaning used and meant here unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication that the specialized legal meaning is intended.
 * (c) Moreover, even if some particular formula of words were to be used to avoid certain legal implications, there are significant practical problems with keeping it in place due to the wiki model, and that is especially true if the preferred locution is unwieldy or "clunky," in that there is no mechanism provided here to lock it in place and prevent it from being changed by the first WikiGnome who comes along and says "that doesn't read right." (And before someone jumps up and says, "We'll just watch it and make sure it isn't changed!" they need to read Ownership of articles and also realize that the language must be inserted by consensus in the first place, that consensus can change at any time, and that arguing that "to change it the way you want it is illegal" is a disfavored, if not prohibited, argument at Wikipedia, which leads us into my next point.)
 * (d) While certain legal issues such as (but not only) use of copyrighted materials without permission, defamation, and threats of violence are dealt with in Wikipedia policy, dilution of trademark or copyright is not, so far as I can find, and the Wikipedia community should not take it into account in making editing decisions. Indeed, there is strong Wikipedia policy discouraging the making of legal claims within the Wikipedia online framework because, among other things, the legal uncertainty of such claims are "show stoppers" which interfere with the free flow of debate here. That does not mean that someone who feels, as Ms. Morris may now or in the future, that her legal rights have been injured should just go away and forget about it. Instead, it means that those specific concerns must be directed directly to the Wikimedia Foundation by email (the best address is probably [mailto:info-en-c@wikimedia.org info-en-c@wikimedia.org]) and not be discussed here, per the just-cited policy.
 * (e) Whatever is introduced into a Wikipedia article must be, if challenged, documented with inline citations to reliable sources. That includes any representations about the sequence in which published works are printed. The editor who introduces or reintroduces material has the burden of providing and defending those citations. If reliable sources are not provided, then the information must be removed from Wikipedia, though the best practice is to give the introducing editor a reasonable amount of time to find and provide sources.


 * Point of Order - Please note that deciding whether something is a reliable source is very much a judgement call. A source may be reliable on one subject, but unreliable on another, due to the author's lack of knowledge of the subject matter, or lack of appropriate source material, a point which I was trying to make to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz earlier, and which he/she/it totally misunderstood. Consider for example Wikipedia's article on ISBN which is inaccurate because it is mostly about the American system, and does not cover the ISBN system in other countries. I'm very familiar with the Canadian system as I am a Canadian Publisher and it doesn't work the same way. Almost all books which you can find on publishing are about the American system, and therefore not reliable sources for publishers in other countries. The book that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is using as his bible may be accurate on some details, but may not be accurate on others. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As briefly as I can, two independent reliable sources for publication history, reporting the magazine appearance as first/primary: reference work, anthology permissions page . Corroborated by Silverberg's authorized bibliography , by ISFDB , the Locus Hugo listing , and the Locus Nebula listing , even by the official awards site . I have found no similarly reliable sources contradicting these reports. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

"One of the basic ideas of the Hell books is that once a person is there, it's forever. If you get killed you come back in a new body after a short time. Another basic idea is that there is no way out. Gilgamesh makes it his quest to find a way out of Hell, a way back to Earth. The irony is that in life, his quest was to make it to the land of the dead to be with his fri'''end Enkidu, and now that he's there, he wants to leave, though he still seeks Enkidu. "The book started as the novella Gilgamesh in the Outback in Rebels in Hell and in that form was nominated for Nebula Award for best novella, 1987. Chapters 1-5 are that novella. Chapters 7-11 were published as The Fascination of the Abomination in Angels in Hell. The title character of Lord of Darkness features prominently in this book as well. I've read a number of the other books in the Hell series, and while they're sometimes enjoyable, I'm not sure I can recommend them. Cherryh's stories are particularly grating to me (which is unusual as she is one of my favorite writers), with their idea that only the famous people of history are important and ordinary people don't even rate bodies in Hell (this is not the way it works in Silverberg's Hell stories, or even many of the other writers in this shared universe)." (Robert Silverberg, http://www.majipoor.com/work.phgp?id=1190)
 * If the assertion is first/original publication, the references cited contradict that point. Nothing in them says "first" or "original." The Silverberg website lists the citations in alphabetical order by title, for example, and the presumption that this indicates "first" or "original" publication is wrong.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap
 * If anyone had any doubts about Dokzap's lack of good faith and disruptive intent, this should dispel them. All you have to do is click on the anthology permissions link I provided, immediately above, where it says, plain as day, "Gilgamesh in the Outback" by Robert Silverberg. Copyright © 1986 by Agberg, Ltd. First published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, July 1986. Reprinted by permission of the author and Agberg, Ltd. As for Dokzap's claim that an academic/library reference bibliography is an unreliable source for determining original publication -- for God's sake, that's what the bibliography is for. He might as well argue that the (1899-1961) following Hemingway's name don't necessarily indicate birth and death, since the text doesn't say that in individual entries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that additional citation. This comment by Robert Silverbeg on his web page may be helpful and more clearly explain how the work came to be. I would recommend adding this to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page: "This fits (more or less) into the shared universe of Hell lorded over by C.J. Cherryh and Janet Morris, though it's not mentioned in this book (probably due to somebody's contracts with somebody else). It continues the adventures of the mythical king into a strange version of the afterworld. I call it strange because it does not fit completely with any religious vision of an afterlife. In the other Hell books, there is a basic Christian slant, with demons presiding over the dead and occasional references to a satanic being in charge, but Hell is not just for sinners. Everyone is there, from Hitler to the saints, from the beginning of the human race to sometime in the 21st century. Silverberg takes a more general view, and the Christian elements of Cherryh and Morris's scenario are not present, and in fact this book stands a little outside the general tone of the rest of the series.
 * In Silverberg's own words, this clearly shows that Nebula nominated version of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was the vesion written in Rebels in Hell. I offer this paragraph and citation as an amendment to my original suggestion as a resolution. Dokzap (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.
 * Well, first of all, we can't drop a large block of cut-and-pasted text like that into an article; it violates WPs nonfree content policy, and is likely an outright copyvio. Second, it's quite apparent that Silverberg didn't write that, and it shouldn't be attributed to him. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wolfowitz quotes these citations above as if they are all equal, which they are not, and equally applicable, which they are not. The DAW collection permission page quotes the first serial of GITO as its source, because it is a second serial and someone chose the attribution -- but this citation shows that any reprint MUST have an attribution and be used by permission. Rather than proving what Wolfowiz thinks, it proves that Rebels in Hell was not a reprint, since the copyright page of Rebels in Hell bears no such notice, but only Janet Morris' copyright and the statement A Baen Books Original. If Baen Books/Simon and Simon & Schuster had lied about the book being an original, they could have been sued. The quote from Silverberg's website is inadmissible by definition: it is Silverberg's website, and at best contains an error of omission or at worst purposely omits the fact that the story was created in a collaborative environment:  I doubt Silverberg created his own website, so this is probably just lack of familiarity by the website text creator that a person as old as Silverberg did not notice. The ISFDB citation above makes no errors: It lists the two publications in the same year alphabetically, and lists them as having occurred in the same month. So a good number of those citations are inadmissible, and the ones derived from the awards information are incomplete: by choice or because of alphabetization, only one of the two relevant citations for that year were represented. This doesn't mean that the second attribution is not correct.

Can this debate be widened to include possible COI or overzealousness or editorial hounding, in whatever terms WP phrases these, on the part of Wolfowitz, who seemingly has an agenda to strip the relevant award winning and nominated stories from the Heroes in Hell(TM) series so he can then delete the Heroes in Hell(TM) series page and all individual book pages (except, it seems, my good friend CJ Cherryh's, which remains untouched with only one review from Locus cited)? Wolfowitz has stated his intention to prove that the Benford and Silverberg stories were not written for HIH (a "low rent series," said Mr W.)in a collaborative environment, but are instead the individual and pre-existing product of Benford and Silverberg's imagination, a premise that is unprovable without original research and which is incorrect. We have explained earlier that having used those characters while the characters were purported to live does not dilute the fact that when dead in hell they were created subject to the rules of the Heroes in Hell(TM) shared universe/world and both authors agreed to these conditions before writing the stories, which were commissioned for the various volumes in which the authors wrote. Under these terms and conditions, both authors wrote more than one story for the series. If the authors didn't have a problem writing for a shared universe/world, why does Mr. Wolfowitz have a problem that they did so? These continued assertions by Wolfowitz that because a first serial MAY have appeared earlier in July than the shared universe book and that the earliest date confers some primacy are getting tedious. Alls tories for a book are turned in, copy-edited, and processed long before the publication and copyright date on the volume. Please see the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_universe, which has NEVER published a reprint, but only originals contracted for each volume. This site explains why no first-serial publication date in any way contravenes the collaborative nature of ALL stories written for the HIH series. The series is, multiple places (some cited above), and in reviews and on some volumes, clearly identified as a shared universe/world. Silverberg contributed not only once, but three times to this shared universe/world. Quoting from Wikipedia's shared universe page, we find: "A shared universe is a fictional universe to which more than one writer contributes. Work set in a shared universe share characters and other elements with varying degrees of consistency. Shared universes are contrasted with collaborative writing, in which multiple authors work on a single story. Shared universes are more common in fantasy and science fiction than in other genres. Examples include the Star Trek, DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Star Wars, Forgotten Realms, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Power Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, and Cthulhu Mythos. A teen summer camp called Shared Worlds, started by author Jeff VanderMeer, is based around this concept." Is HIH listed there? No, but it could have been. Not all shared worlds are listed. As a matter of fact, many books are listed that are NOT shared universe volumes: A "List of CJ Cherry books" linked there in references shows group of titles on her website that can be purchased on Amazon from that link on WP's "shared universes" page, and very few of the Cherryh books being sold there are shared universes, if any. (Is this Wikipedia's vaunted neutrality? Or in business with CJ?) Since so far there has been no debate that HIH is a shared universe/world, the very fact that it is one and listed so on Wikipedia and in citations from several sources quoted on the HIH page on Wikipedia and stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, should end the debate about what the primary source of the work was:  it was HIH, with a magazine serialization in IASFM that was required to list that the story "will be published in Rebels in Hell" -- a citation required if the story in IASFM was a first serial. As a matter of fact provided by Wolfowitz himself, the absence of a permission citation on the copyright page of RIH PROVES it to be the primary source of the GITO story. I strongly suggest that the attributions in Wikipedia for GITO be Dokzap's solution of both July 1986 publications being listed in alphabetical order with no use of the word "reprint" or "reprinted" or, failing consensus on that, that ALL related works, including CJ Cherry's Legions of Hell and the GITO page, be merged into the HIH series page as suggested by Urban Terrorist. And I ask once again for protection from this overzealous editor, Wolfowitz, so that those with an interest in expanding the pages aren't chased away by continual fear that he will unilaterally delete any contributions he doesn't like without giving editors the opportunity to improve their contributions. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This diatribe hurled in my direction is so breathtakingly inept that, even more than earlier ones, makes it exceptionally difficult to believe that this is Janet Morris, or anyone else with significant professional experience in the publishing business. I'll be brief, and just give two examples. "Janet" challenges the anthology permissions page I linked to (the "DAW collection"), saying that as a "second serial" it's somehow appropriate for it to attribute only the first serial. This makes no sense in terms of applicable law and standards, of course, but that's not the most important flub. The anthology, a book edited by the late Brian Thomsen and published by DAW Books, isn't a "second serial" publication because second serial publication refers to publication in magazines, newspapers, or similar periodicals. You don't have to take my word for that. Take the word of the Authors Guild, the leading US organization for professional writers. It says that right here in section 2, "Subsidiary Rights". "Janet" also says that "first serial publication" in a magazine is "required" to list the upcoming book publication for works like these. There's no authority cited for that, because it's just not true. Here's a scan (from the Silverberg-authorized site) of the first two pages of the Silverberg story which appeared in Angels in Hell . You'll noticed that although it carries a copyright notice on behalf of Bob Silverberg (aka Agberg Ltd), it doesn't credit, or even mention, you or Angels in Hell. Though there isn't a scan online for it that I've turned up, the same is true for the third Silverberg novella, "Gilgamesh in Uruk." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE

I would like to suggest that the verbiage used on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Talk page by User:Dokzap here be adopted as the language on the Heroes in Hell pages and stop this unnecessary waste of everyone's time. The quote from User:Dokzap is accurate and appropriate. Quote: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell (July 1987)*, published by Baen Books."

Would everyone who is willing to accept User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page, please note that below this post? If so, possibly we might be able to conclude this discussion. Thank you. *(Publication date added in the interest of total accuracy) Hulcys930 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to accept the User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page and for the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Guarddog2 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia is not a vote, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Second, you have a clear COI and shouldn't be participating in discussions on what sort of credit you're entitled to benefit from. Third, it's been pointed out to me that you were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project. According to at least one of your associates, you've been canvassing off-wiki. And the flood of SPA's who've surfaced, arguing in concert and principally or only editing articles related to you and your works, indicates your abuse of multiple accounts has resumed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have such solid proof of malfeasance provide it with documentation. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are talking about. I can barely manage to get around on WP.  I was given this address by another editor who said it would be perfectly fine if I participated.  I set up Guarddog specifically for the purpose of providing fact for HIH discussions:  I said that on the page.  You know that.  You went there.  You saw the disclosure I put there.  Having seen the disclosure, I was told it would be fine if I participated. First you say I'm not who I say I am, and now you say I'm some sort of WP mastermind?  Please make up your mind.  As I said, I support the Dozkap proposal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarddog2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wolfy, if you read the post you so kindly cited, you'll note that Mike (who is, by the way, not Janet; he clearly identified himself as the author of that post) was not canvassing for support; he was looking to gather *information.* Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Dozkap's wording as well, for the record. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll accept User:Dokzap's wording as well. We've wasted too much time on this, let's get back to being productive. I need to re-write the catalytic converter article again, some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry has messed it up. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the core issue here is when a given story was first published. All this talk about copyright and publication rights is a load of hooey as I see it.  We don't adjudicate legal or contractual issues here.  That's the realm of lawyers and contracts - we describe what the reliable sources say in public, not what lawyers and their clients argue about in conference rooms and court rooms.  The fundamental questions here here is: where could a science fiction fan first purchase and read this story?  It seems to me that the evidence indicates that the answer is in Isaac Asimov's magazine.  If so, the article should say so.  And if the story then appeared shortly thereafter in a book, then the article should say so.  If the story was, in effect, commissioned for that book, and fits in with the scenario and theme established for that book by the creator of that series of books, then the article should say so.  When the article says such things, those statements should be backed up by references to reliable sources.  This is especially important when, as in this case, (for some bizarre reason) the matter is contentious.  All this commentary about how "clueless" Wikipedia editors are about publishing and that "the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues" is really over the top.  This is not a journal about publishing rights, and this article isn't the place to discuss such topics.  I am a moderately experienced editor, and I'm not embarrassed by this kerfuffle, except vicariously for those who have expelled so much hot air here.  Wikipedia is roughly the fifth or sixth most visited website in the world, and is number one in terms of original written content.  Billions of people rely on Wikipedia, not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it is based on what reliable sources say about notable topics, not what axe-grinders with obvious conflicts of interest are driven to say about those topics.  So, to those new editors who are so hot and bothered here, I would advise you to get involved in the editing of 20 contentious articles on a wide variety of topics.  When you return to this debate, perhaps you can see how inconsequential the issues here really are in the grand scheme of things.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Cullen328 for your input. Hopefully, it will be followed... and by long-time editors with obvious "issues."

Mr. Wolfowitz: You seem to feel free to bandy about accusations of wrongdoing and impersonation with regard to Janet Morris (first, you accused Luke Jaywalker of being Janet Morris, second you accused me of being Janet Morris, but when Janet Morris signs on and identifies herself, you firmly insist she is NOT Janet Morris {oddly convoluted reasoning}). Then you make the following statements with no citations or backup of any kind as if by you asserting the accusation, it is automatically to be taken as gospel:  "it's been pointed out to me that you [Janet Morris] were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a [sic] account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project."  So, as you insist others do, add the appropriate citations of the discussion/procedure in which SOMEONE was blocked for inappropriate behavior on WP, along with whatever evidence you have used to determine that person is, in fact, Janet Morris, or please withdraw the accusations. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented the evidence, which I find persuasive, on the Administrator's noticeboard  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't try to read my remarks as any criticism of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's role here. His "issue" here is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The talk page for this article is packed full of false accusations that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest here.  He doesn't.  In fact, the editor claiming to be Janet Morris and the editors claiming to be contributors to the series are the ones who have a demonstrable conflict of interest here.  Who knows if that editor really is Janet Morris, but if that's true, the conflict of interest is bald.  Who knows if those other editors really are the authors, but if so, their conflict of interests are exposed by those disclosures.  We have a procedure here, called WP:OTRS which allows editors to verify their real world identity in confidence.  Any editor wanting to assert such a real world identity needs to go through that process, or be prepared to have their identity questioned and discounted here.


 * If the editor claiming to be Janet Morris denies connection with the indefinitely blocked editor mentioned by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, then we have highly experienced checkusers here who can determine whether or not those claims are true or false. Until then, experienced editors are likely to accept, at least provisionally,  the assertions of an experienced editor like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz.  All further arguments should be based on a deep and nuanced understanding of Wikipedia's over-arching policies and guidelines, not on the self-interested assertions of single purpose accounts and editors with a genuine conflict of interest.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to let everyone who hasn't received an Administrator's Noticeboard note that some of use have been accused of being sock puppets by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I checked the pages of everyone who I remembered as being involved here, and only some people got the notice, and curiously almost all of them were in opposition to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It appears if he cannot win one way, he's going to win another. If you disagree with this type of gamesmanship I suggest you tell him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even for UrbanTerrorist, this an exceptionally weird complaint. As no one disputes, I notified everyone I was required to notify regarding the ANI complaint. To notify people not mentioned or otherwise involved in the subject of the complaint would probably have been a WP:CANVASS problem. I don't believe I've ever seen before an objection to an ANI for notifying only editors on the "other side" from the complainant. As a result of the complaint, Guarddog2 has admitted being an alternate account of the indef-blocked user Harmonia1, demonstrating that the complaint was valid and correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is technically true, in that the people he had made the complaint against were notified. However there were other people involved in this discussion, and they were not notified. I believe that they too had an interest in what was happening, as the outcome would affect them as well, so I made certain that they were notified by visiting their discussion pages and posting the notice directly to them. I also posted this on the discussion pages of other people who had been involved with the issue in the past. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As you might deduce from my prior comments I, too, think that Dokzap's language is fine and you can add my support to the consensus growing in its favor. However, in light of the discussion ongoing at ANI, it would be inappropriate under the guidelines of this noticeboard to continue any further discussion here of the issues raised there, broadly construed, so I am asking as a neutral in this matter that all further discussion here be limited to the issue of the language to be used to relate Gilgamesh in the Outback to its various publications either to discuss the Dokzap proposal or to propose and discuss other language which an editor finds more suitable. I express no opinion about the matters raised at the ANI discussion, but would respectfully request that all further discussion of them take place at that forum, not here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While I respect your efforts, I think you are dead wrong here. The templates and related documentation for WP:WikiProject Novels (which ought to be called WikiProject Fiction, since its scope has widened since it was named) call for identification of the first publication of each fictional work which is the subject of an article. In particular, the "Infobox: short story" template, which is used for all shorter-than-novel-length fiction, makes such information a standard infobox data field. There are no reliable sources contradicting the multiple sources I have provided and cited for the actual first publication. This dispute, to put it simply, is over the principle that Wikipedia is not censored to promote the economic interests of anyone, even if they recruit and cohort of their friends and colleagues to support their demand for a special exception from a general consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, any time someone edits a page of someone whom they know, even peripherally, they are attempting to use Wikipedia to sell something? Perhaps this is the fundamental problem - you BELIEVE that anything that even hints of a COI means someone is trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even if that was not their intention at all, and you respond in a knee-jerk manner attempting to "protect" Wikipedia from people you assume are using it for profit, instead of contacting the person to determine their intent and, if they have made mistakes in editing, help them do it properly. It is really very sad that attitude has caused all this sturm and drang.  Hulcys930 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the kind. My comments relate to the particular circumstances of this case, and to Guarddog2/Janet Morris's comments thsn presenting the accurate, verifiable information reported in independent reliable sources about publication chronology would have an adverse impact on her eceonomic interests. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the sources cited do not show "first" or "original" publication. I apologize for repeating this observation, but I am trying to be thorough here in challenging an assumption which, on examination of the evidence, is wrong.05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap
 * Guys, a few things. First, if it's that much of a sticking point, you can just leave out the field in the infobox; it's not a big deal.  Second, regardless of what you decide to put into the infobox, you can still use Dokzap's proposal for the article text.  Third, seriously, if you look at which was published first, ignoring who may or may not have owned the story at the time (which isn't something our readers are going to care about anyway), it shouldn't be difficult to figure out.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

DELIBERATELY PRESENTING SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AKA REWRITING HISTORY

The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz, by someone not familiar with Wikipedia. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors:

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article:

Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6]

You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context.

What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)[1]

"During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier."

The second paragraph[1] described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters.

The third paragraph[1] - again verbatim:

"It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that."

I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work, was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source.

ALL UN-BIASED EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. THANK YOU. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000


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

I created an image gallery of the people on the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, including a scanned copy of their 1999 report on OTC Derivatives. Wizardman deleted this gallery. I restored it. He deleted it again. We exchanged messages on our talk pages. We disagree about the importance and/or appropriateness of the gallery. There may also be an issue with one of the 5 gallery pictures is a placeholder as there are no easily obtainable free images out there yet of one of the PWG members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=438444523&oldid=432115146

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=414095848&oldid=413237270

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

We exchanged talk page messages.


 * How do you think we can help?

Decide if the content is appropriate, and whether it benefits the article or not.

Decora (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I don't think zero posts on the talk page and a single user talk message entitled "Notice of intent to file arbitration dispute" can be reasonably construed as an attempt to resolve the dispute.


 * what kind of discussion could have been possible? he deleted the edits several times with no explanation, ("cleanup") and when i ask for an explanation, he basically said that the gallery was 'palceholders', something that i dont even understand, because only one of the 5 was a placeholder. not sure what more i am supposed to do before coming here. Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

But since we're here anyway, galleries are generally frowned upon, since they tend to be unnecessary and to clutter the page. This particular gallery does not, to me, appear to be a good use of images; the people pictured aren't even mentioned in the text and what they look like isn't relevant to the article. The gallery is also not well conceived: one of the members lacks a photograph, and one isn't a person at all. It appears that you might be confused about how sources are used at Wikipedia. A pdf does not have to be linked to as an image to be used as a source. Usually the citation of a document links to an online version of that document. The proper method of citing sources is described here. So list the members in the text and cite the report like one would with any other source document. Danger (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * the people are, in fact, mentioned in the article numerous times. the whole article is about the arguments they made and the results of their work. Every time the articles references 'the PWG', it is referencing those four people - but there are no pictures of them in the article. The one man does not have a picture, but the same was true of the 1933 German Election page for several years, until someone added the missing pictures of the other candidates. the picture of the document is not a citation, it is a picture of the report they produced, the report that heavily influenced the creation of CFMA, and a report that is heavily referenced in the text of the article. Just as an article about a book might have a picture of the book, or a film would have a picture of the one sheet, or an article about a painting would have a copy of the painting, or an article about the nuremburg laws would have scans of the laws, or articles about the wannsee confereence has scans of the conference notes. it is illustration, not reference Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood your intentions regarding the report scan. It's true that articles about artistic works usually include an image of the work. However, the report is not an artistic work and there's nothing distinctive about its appearance. Further, as far as I can tell, it is not the subject of the article. It might be appropriate to insert an image as normal (i.e. not in a gallery) in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be in a gallery of the members of the PWG. Regarding the images of the members, it might be appropriate to include images of individual members if their actions–as individuals, not the group as a whole–are discussed in the text. Otherwise they seem to be just decorative. --Danger (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If a gallery seems necessary, I'm sure there's a way to make it without needing to add the placeholder. Having the pictures of those members split up throughout the article could help the article read better, since it is quite long. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Decora, is splitting the gallery into individual images distributed through the article an acceptable solution for you? --Danger (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 resolution
Discussion has stalled here and on the talk page. If necessary feel free to post here again. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language


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

A user is challenging whether nsibidi, an ideographic writing system, should be considered a writing system because in their opinion ideograms are not considered writing by some author or book. This is despite the fact that ideograms are considered writing here on wikipedia and on dictionary definitions; nsibidi is considered a writing system by every reliable source that is out there; there are other ideographic writing systems on wikipedia that are considered writing; and nsibidi itself has logographic elements, such as the character for the script itself.

The origin of this dispute is when the user edited the Igbo language page and, in their opinion, claimed that nsibidi should not be put into the writing systems section of the infobox because "nsibidi is not writing", when challenged about this the user went on to impose their opinions on the main article of nsibidi itself, despite editing it before all the disputes took place, back then they apparently didn't see a problem with it being called writing.

The user has used all the references they can get (2) to support their opinion that ideograms, and therefore nsibidi, are not writing. On their user talk they used a reference for nsibidi on the Igbo language page from the Smithsonian website that read:

"Nsibidi is an ancient system of graphic communication indigenous to the Ejagham peoples of southeastern Nigeria and southwestern Cameroon in the Cross River region. It is also used by neighboring Ibibio, Efik and Igbo peoples. Aesthetically compelling and encoded, nsibidi does not correspond to any one spoken language. It is an ideographic script whose symbols refer to abstract concepts, actions or things and whose use facilitates communication among peoples speaking different languages."

When the user dug up this quote, they failed to read where nsibidi is described as a "script", can the readers please tell me of a script that is not considered writing? When I pointed this out, the user then dropped and forgot this reference and moved onto to a book that they had read where writing is supposed to be a certain way in the theory of the author. I didn't know wikipedia is the place to introduce new theories and opinions to argued over and disputed. I showed this user what the reliable sources defined writing as after they proceeded to describe to me what writing is, and how nsibidi could be a "writing system" but not "true writing".

First reference was Websters dictionary definition for writing which reads: "2 : something written: as a : letters or characters that serve as visible signs of ideas, words, or symbols" Just to be sure I gave wikipedias definition: "Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium through the use of a set of signs or symbols (known as a writing system). It is distinguished from illustration, such as cave drawing and painting, and non-symbolic preservation of language via non-textual media, such as magnetic tape audio." I explained that a body of symbols which includes a symbol for the name of the system itself is not cave drawing or illustration. The person started talking about road signs and 'no parking signs' being considered writing if nsibidi is considered writing, which is nonsense as road signs aren't used by the society to record their stories, court cases, and family matters.



All the points I have raised differentiating nsibidi from road signs can be argued, but on the nsibidi page there is this symbol: which was recorded with the specific name "Etak Ntaña Nsibidi" by Elphinstone Dayrell in 1910, just like the sign/symbol/character for nsibidi, and just like hundreds of others in these early 20th century MAN journals that were recorded with Cross River languages. I do not know a road sign in which its existence is to be linked to a specific word, unless there is, of course, writing on them, which many of them have. Again, why would a system like nsibidi have signs such as tortoise, such as sex, such as chief, killed, kill, will kill, solitary man, talk, and others, and place them side by side in order to narrate a story but are just 'road signs', are road signs known to be used to record court cases or love stories and letters? If so they should be investigated to see whether they are writing. The last issue with this comparison to road signs is with the numerical system of nsibidi, nsibidi has symbols that are used for counting which are similar to Roman numerals, (all these are in the references), road signs do not have separate symbols from the Hindu-Arabic numerals to describe numbers, unless I have missed something. Nsibidi was taught in schools also known as nsibidi houses, which is explained in the article (although the article is at its early stages). Every source on nsibidi describes it either as a script or writing system, so why should wikipedia be different because of a users opinion? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a debating website?

The other issue is with the Igbo language article where the user has removed nsibidi as a writing system (alongside a Latin based orthography), and the user has resorted to redundant edits that do not have any solid reason. The user has claimed that it is not enough for the Igbo language infobox to name the standard form of Igbo as simply Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo), but would have to name the dialects that it is based off. The article itself explains the creation of Standard Igbo and all the user needs to do is to read the article to see that there are dozens of dialects that have gone into Standard Igbo to make it a pan-Igbo dialect itself, which makes it impossible to name every single dialect that went into the standard form in the infobox. What is wrong in simply calling it 'Standard Igbo'? That is its name as it is not a pre-existing dialect such as Standard German is.

On the Efik language, it is not and never will be the same language as Ibibio, they are closely related, yes, and they are under a dialect continuum that is named 'Efik', Ibibio itself is not a dialect of the Efik language, it is a language of the Efik language family, and this is because the Efik language, although a minority, became the dominant language of trade and was therefore attributed to the Ibibio-Anaang, et. al. The user is simply wrong in classifying Ibibio and Anaang and other languages in the Efik language family as a dialect of Efik. Please click this link to understand. As you can see the Efik language itself is under the Efik language family ; Ibibio itself has its own dialects. The ironic thing about all this is that the user corrected me in the Igbo language article when I listed some Igboid languages as Igbo dialects, and the user is insisting on doing the same thing here on the Efik language and adding 'dubious' tags all over the article. There are even external arguments as to whether this family should be called Efik, or if Efik itself is even a dialect of Ibibio. Before challenging me on this I want someone to provide a reliable source apart from the highly flawed ethnologue that describes Ibibio as a dialect of Efik. This is completely ridiculous and can cause controversy across the communities. How can Efik that is argued to be from Ibibio be the parent language of Ibibio? The problem with all this is that much of this information has been taken from tertiary sources such as ethnologue and other encyclopaedia's. It's either all the languages under Efik as ethnologue describes are separated and the name for the group is explained as disputed, or the languages are considered dialects of the Efik-Ibibio-Anaang-Ukwa languages, instead of the controversial 'Efik'.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

Yes, and it has led to 'dubious tags'. It has been discussed here, here, and here.


 * How do you think we can help?

By relying on reliable resources for facts and not on opinion or new theories.

Ukabia - talk 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language discussion
Yes, the solution is to follow RS's. Ukabia seems to be of the opinion that WP is a RS, and that, for example, Daniels & Bright, The World's Writing Systems, is 'opinion'. Ukabia is also engaging in OR: since Chinese and cuneiform are ideographic, and writing, therefore nsibidi, which is ideographic, must also be writing—either not understanding what 'ideographic' means, or the nature of Chinese and cuneiform. Daniels & Bright, and from what I remember other sources, are clear that in order to be considered a writing system, it must be able to represent language, so that a third party can read back a text (assuming they know the language). International pictorial icons used in the West therefore do not count as writing. Yukaghir love letters do not count as writing. Aztec and Zapotec codices do not count (though Mayan does). The Vinca "script" ("Old European") does not count. We speak of "civilization" being founded on the invention of writing, and philologists argue about whether it was the Sumerians or Egyptians who invented it. But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt. "Prehistory" is the time before writing. Using Ukabia's understanding, there is no prehistory.

Ukabia is correct about one thing, however: we do speak of other pictographic/ideographic systems as "writing", using a perhaps less strict definition of writing than we should. Editors have in the past tried to exaggerate nsibidi (that it's 5000 years old, etc.), which is why I've been strict with that article (we don't have Aztec or Yukaghir nationalists trying to exaggerate those "scripts"), but IMO it should be treated the same as these other systems. Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are). I think this is perhaps s.t. for Wikiprojects writing systems to discuss. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Ibibio/Efik, some sources consider these a single language, some separate languages. Efik is a variety of Ibibio in the broad sense, but because of its cultural importance (it was chosen as the literary standard), the whole tends to be called 'Efik' rather than 'Ibibio', as Ukabia notes. Some call the Dachsprache 'Ibibio-Efik' to avoid the politics of choosing one or the other. I think this has been happening since the 60s. There have been disputes about this article before, and it has been moved back & forth between the names, but most of the complaints (from both sides) have involved rants and unilateral moves rather than intelligent discussion. It may be a good idea to split the article, though it contains so little info I'm not sure that is justified, but even if we do the debate over what to call the main article will probably continue (Ukabia says it's 'Efik', others say it's 'Ibibio', etc). — kwami (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I said that Chinese and Cuneiform came from ideograms and still have many ideograms in them, if these early ideograms were considered the beginning of writing, then how are ideograms not writing, it doesn't make sense. I did not say Cuneiform and Chinese are ideograms. We've already had a discussion on the Writing system project talk page and a user (Christoph Päper) has already explained that the definition of writing varies among linguists and that ideograms very often are considered writing with some conditions:

Linguists (e.g. DeFrancis 1989) tend to equate writing with glottography, i.e. only if a set of symbols and rules is able to record any and every human language completely it is truly writing. A system that is restricted (not only in practice, but also in theory) to a limited set of languages, e.g. just one, is sometimes also considered writing. Also, since the line is often hard to draw, many scholars include pictographic or ideographic symbols under the notion of writing, if (and only if) they’re retained in a later writing system, e.g. Sumerian cuneiform was only used for labeling in the beginning. Scientists from other disciplines, including paleography, typography, philosophy and more, as well as laypeople often have a laxer interpretation of the term writing. Famous cases of “semasiography” in question are, for instance, the Yukaghir love letter and the 53$ money order from Turtle-Following-His-Wife (cf. Sampson 198x). Rogers (2005) mentions Bliss as the only semantic writing system and IPA etc. as phonetic writing systems, but others would disagree. Sometimes a linear sequence of symbols is considered necessary for writing, so no complex 2D structures.

The reliance on one source does not change dictionary definitions of writing. The reliance on one source does not change wikipedias countless references of ideograms as writing. On the same talk page I went further to explain logographic uses of the nsibidi script and how authors who recorded them described some as "names written", and went further to give native words for them like door, love, and Etak Ntaña. The user has not explained why there are specific words used for some 'characters', yes characters as Macgregor has described them. Bear in mind, ideograms whether 'true writing' or not, are still considered writing systems.

"But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt." None of them have a glyph for the name of the writing system itself described as "written" or names written in them with their original symbols.

"Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are)." There is no reliable source that claims these symbols to be writing. I've already given a source that compared nsibidi to a uli graphics and they were differentiated as writing and motifs. Every source in the nsibidi article notes nsibidi as a 'script' or 'writing system', but this is only up for debate because of your opinion with the excuse of one dubious edit that was undisputed and even had a source. You claim that I am practicing original research, yet you're the one using an authors definition of writing to negate the works of other authors who have studied nsibidi, yet the author you talk about didn't mention nsibidi once in their book, again you resort to original research by claiming this is a sign nsibidi is not writing. The nsibidi article isn't the only article on wikipedia where mistakes have been made, especially at stub level, there are featured articles with fallacies. Holding on to this past event has nothing to do with facts now. Can anyone show us any of the systems across Africa that early 20th century missionaries described its use as "that of ordinary writing" and that are still considered scripts? My guess is that there are none. Ukabia - talk 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear that this is not an issue of whether nsibidi is "true writing" or not, but if nsibidi is a writing system. There are no arguments against nsibidi being a writing system. Ukabia - talk 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Some references to nsibidi over some years

1968 "I have already mentioned various West African devices for transmission of thought (p. 7 f. and 11). Nsibidi or Nchibiddi or Nchibiddy seems to be the only true 'ideographic' script of the West African natives (Fig. 9.7)."


 * The alphabet: a key to the history of mankind, Volume 1. David Diringer (1968). Pg. 106.

1977 "The nsibidi signs used by secret societies in various language groups in southern Nigeria, eg the Igbo, Efik, and Ekoi, have been considered by some to be of a similar pictographic nature, but others have maintained it is true writing, based on either a logographic or syllabary system. Although nsibidi signs were first discovered by TD Maxwell as early as 1904, published accounts remain fragmentary and the available evidence seems insufficient to decide the matter one way or another. Adams adds an interesting detail that might be mentioned, viz. that the Arochuku people of this same general area and probably users of nsibidi, sent messages between villages by painting them on the bodies of the messengers themselves" [it has since been established that the people of Arochukwu not only use nsibidi, but trade ukara]."


 * Language in Africa: an introductory survey. Edgar A. Gregersen (1977). Pg. 176.

2000 "Formerly a ukara was not signed or marked, but one can now see in a corner of the cloth the owner's or maker's mark. There were however lodge identifications. […] It resorts to a myth remembered from the Efut by the Efik and is probably to some extent a reminiscence of an older Efik cult. Ukara is a cult object of a complex society open to external influences. […] The ownership of a ukara is of course essential for a mboko (leopard-man). In the middle of the 19th century, the missionary Waddel noted that 100 pounds sterling had to be paid to acquire the highest grade and obtain the right to wear the corresponding ukara. […] On close examination, a ukara reveals a rigorous arrangement of motives:" "The total depth of Ekpe symbolism on these cloths, although rich, cannot be entirely clarified on account of the discretion surrounding Ekpe rites and Nsibidi. (Cole & Aniakor: 1984, 61)."

"Nevertheless, one can readily see that the motives function collectively like a poem in which most of the signifiers are repeated and reinforce the raison d'etre of the text and the object. […] Some are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice."


 * African writing and text. Simon P. X. Battestini (2000). Pg. 148.

2007 "Prior to Arabic (ajami) writing and later franco- or anglography, Emmanuel Obiechina mentions the existence of proto-literate "ideo-diffusion" scripts like Bamum Vaï and Oberi Okaime as well as the Yoruba “Aroko“ system, Ewe ideographs and Igbo chalk marks as underdeveloped ideographs, unlike the Nsibidi script, “the only true ideographic script in West Africa,” whose development, he speculates, was arrested by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa; "Groweth of Written Literature by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa," ''Présence africaine 66 (1968): 58-60."


 * The African palimpsest. Chantal Zabus (2007). Pg. 23. Ukabia - talk 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff indeed. As the opinion of a non-involved non admin who found much of the above TL;DR, this seems to me to be mostly a case of definitions. What is a "script", what is a "writing system", what is a "language", etc. And I agree the only way to determine that is to look for consensus in reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood OpenFuture. I am surprised that this is considered a debatable issue partly because of the advice you've given. The dispute has turned to whether reliable sources consider ideograms writing or not, when the real focus is whether nsibidi is a writing system or not. Every source mentioning nsibidi more than suggests that it is. For this to be debatable there should be another array of reliable sources conflicting with the status of nsibidi as a writing system, or a generally noticeable debate, yet no one has brought up anything that says nsibidi is not a writing system, or that nsibidi as a writing systems itself is being debated. The only debate that seems to be going on outside wikipedia is as to what type of writing system nsibidi is as demonstrated above, whether pictographic, ideographic, logographic, syllabic or whatever else. Sources suggest that it is a mixture of pictograms, ideograms, and logograms as the nsibidi article already notes. This whole dispute seems more like the opinion of one user against reliable sources. What exactly are we looking for apart from sources to sort this dispute out? Is wikipedia not an tertiary encyclopaedia relying on published sources? Ukabia - talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about Nsibidi, but from both of your descriptions here I get the impression that this is not an open and shut case. Based on the quotes that Ukabia has provided above it would seem that Nsibidi has some writing-system-like aspects, but based on Kwami's argument this may not be enough to qualify it as a true writing system. As always, the way to settle this one is to look to the sources. Kwami mentioned Daniels & Bright, and when I did a cursory Google search I found this book review which suggests that it is an authoritative text that cannot be easily ignored. I suspect the best wording will ultimately be something like "authoritative texts such as Daniels & Young do not classify Nsibidi as a writing system, but some scholars have suggested otherwise". However, whether my suspicion is right or not will involve finding which sources are authoritative, and how the claims are weighted in the sources. We will only really know what to put in the infobox after we have done that research first. I agree with the suggestion of talking about this at WikiProject Writing Systems - it seems like a good place to start. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We have RS's mentioning that it has been claimed that nsibidi is writing (no source is ever mentioned), but we have no RS's that it actually is writing. Ukabia is engaging in OR and synthesis, and does not understand the basics of what a writing system is. There are many systems like nsibidi around the world, and in our history of writing article we were careful not to say they were writing. (Until Ukabia added nsibidi to that article and started revert warring over the claim that it is writing.) Of course, it may turn out that nsibidi is an ideographic writing system, but since we have RS's that such a thing is not possible, that claim would require good sourcing. Or that it's not ideographic after all, despite all of the accounts that it is. Again, we require good sourcing. D&B mention 16 indigenous scripts in West Africa, and don't mention any contention: they're simply accepted as writing. Nsibidi is not. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniels & Brights' book was not created to cancel out certain writing systems that didn't meet their criteria of writing. How are we going to talk about research and sourcing in one paragraph and then later make a conclusion based off of nothing? Its a good thing I read the review because now it seems that the section of the book that supposedly went into depth on African writing systems (and snubbed nsibidi) was actually a part of the book dedicated to "the invention of writing in modern times", focusing on the N'Ko alphabet and Vai syllabary and spending one or two paragraphs on the Bamum script and not even mentioning the Ajami script. Do we proceed to put on trial all the African scripts confined to the footnotes (like the Kpelle syllabary) or even completely absent (like the Mandombe alphabet et. al.)? What are the 16 African scripts mentioned, and how many paragraphs are they each given? This is not to talk of other scripts that may have been left out. It doesn't make sense that with all the sources describing nsibidi as writing, the authors didn't think to debunk the "myth" and ignored the maturing topic altogether, unless, of course, they didn't even mention the topic of pre-Latin African writing systems at all. Daniels & Bright would be a good source to prove nsibidi not to be writing if they had defined it themselves in a part of the book dedicated to the many pre-Latin African symbols and glyphs, instead, the reasons for its elision from the book is up for guess work. Ukabia - talk 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To call anything a writing system or writing we need reliable sources directly mentioning that claim. I've also emailed Daniels asking for sources but I don't know if he's around (we've corresponeded in the past).Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Now I realise you only have my word that this is what Daniels says, but given that, here it is. He isn't familiar with Nsibidi but says "Ukabia is quite mistaken about the meaning of "ideographic," since Ukabia claims that Chinese and "cuneiform" have "ideographic elements." He notes, and I whole-heartedly agree, that general-purpose dictionaries are not useful sources for the meaning of technical terms. He goes on to say that "The reason for excluding ideographies from "writing" is that if you're going to include all visual semasiographic systems as "writing," you're going to need a different term for "true writing" anyway, so why not use the traditional one, instead of letting some _other_ communication system have the "exalted" term "writing" applied to it? Why does Ukabia want to call Nsibidi "writing," if it doesn't act like any other writing system? Why isn't Ukabia pleased that Nsibidi is (apparently) a semasiographic system that transcends a single language and (apparently) functions for speakers of every language in the world? (For if it's ideographic, is is not bound to any single language -- as mathematical notation is not bound to any single language but can be read off in any language that has mathematical vocabulary.)" In a 2nd email he notes that "If Dalby didn't mention it, it probably either could not possibly be confused with writing, or else is so obscure that it was unknown to the principal specialist in the field of the second half of the 20th century." Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your help is appreciated Dougweller. If you don't mind, can you please ask Daniels what he thinks (even if it's just an educated guess) of Battestini's (2000) claim that "some [nsibidi symbols] are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice.", and Elphinstone Dayrell's (1911) labelling of nsibidi symbols like "Nsibidi name written"; a label for a symbol simply named "Okereuki" (this was under a section he called Inde, probably an Igbo sub group; "Okereuki" is very likely the Igbo name Okereke, but I'll leave that to the author), the labelling of abstract glyphs with 'native' names like the bunch of bananas 'Etak Ntaña'; "The 'Nsibidi sign for welcome"; J. K. Macgregor's note on another name which was made up of two corrupted Latin letters and one generic nsibidi sign; and just the general use of logographs among all the ideograms. I say all this because it wasn't intended for this dispute to be over whether ideograms are writing systems or not, this is partly because of the way I phrased some things and how the article was worded (ideographic writing system), but the main issue is whether nsibidi is writing or not and why all the sources that note nsibidi's dynamic use as ideograms, logograms and possibly (although I doubt this myself) syllabary/mora are wrong. Ukabia - talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I'd rather not. Among other things he isn't familiar with it, and I'd rather not wear out my welcome with him. He did read this board. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a little more chance to look into this now, and I have to say that I agree with what Kwami has been saying all along. It is quite easy to find references to Nsibidi as a writing system, but these appear to be informal usage and generally occur in books on signs and symbolism or other non-specialist sources, rather than in specialist linguistic sources. To add to Daniels & Bright, Nsibidi also doesn't make an appearance in the three other writing system encyclopedias I found on Google Books. The most telling source I found was this one, which refers to Nsibidi as a "protoliterate system":"All these scripts - the Nsibidi, the Bamum, the Vai, and the Oberi Okaime - could be regarded as protoliterate systems, in the sense in which Kramer uses the term to describe the Sumerian phase of writing in Lower Mesopotamia when writing was first invented, rather than the sense in which Goody and Watt use it to refer to the fully developed Sumerian, Egyptian or Chinese systems, which, though restricted to a relatively small proportion of the population, of an elite literati, were already being utilized for religious, administrative, and technological purposes. The Bamum, Nsibidi, and Vai scripts obviously showed considerable promise of further development, but their rather limited and local application meant that they were doomed in the face of the advancing cosmopolitan Western and Arabic scripts." I think this all indicates that we should avoid calling Nsibidi a writing system. I suggest using something like "protoliterate system" instead. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. I understand why the absence of nsibidi in the books you provided could be seen to mean that the authors do not consider it writing, even when some other systems are not mentioned. What I don't understand is why nsibidi is grouped with syllabary systems in the Obiechina book while the other books consider them writing, but this book calls them protoliterate...


 * But, I agree with 'protoliterate'. To put the issue of nsibidi to a rest (because there seems to be differing views as to what nsibidi is, whether from indirect sources or from its early exposure), the script should be left as saying 'nsibidi is a protoliterate system of symbols that has yet to be determined to be a system of ideograms, of logograms, or less likely a syllabary.' I don't know about "less likely" but I think this is fair because 1. all the sources mentioning it directly, (including the early documenters) describe it as a "writing system" and there apparently aren't any recent sources that deal with its status as a writing system, these same sources call it "ideographic", so we'd have to drop that as well, and 2. there is no bias in the sentence towards nsibidi being a writing system or not. This is better than saying "a set of written ideographic symbols (claimed by some to be a writing system, either logographic or even a syllabary)" for the reasons above. It's more obvious now that nsibidi hasn't been given any of the recent special attention that it needs.


 * The issue of the Efik language and Igbo Standard is still open. Ukabia - talk 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I did say that I didn't know anything about nsibidi, so I don't think I can help you regarding its relation to the other syllabary systems (at least not without doing a lot more research). I'm glad that you're happy with "protoliterate" though. Let's see what Kwami thinks of your wording suggestion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But what does "proto-literate" mean? He says Vai is "protoliterate", yet Vai is a true writing system (a syllabary), so evidently it has nothing to do with the nature of the script itself, which is what we're debating. We'll need to ask the writing-systems project whether they want to call systems "scripts" when they are not true writing, but meanwhile we have numerous recent sources that nsibidi is ideographic, and none that it is anything else. Even Ukabia is of the opinion that it's ideographic. "Proto-writing" would be fine: that's the term we've been using for such systems, one which is defined, and defined as precisely the kind of system our refs say that nsibidi is. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, we want to use defined terms, and "proto-writing" is obviously better than "proto-literate" if the former is in wide use but the latter isn't. If Ukabia is also happy with this, great. If not, I think we should take the debate to WikiProject Writing Systems as I am definitely showing my ignorance of the subject here. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * S/he placed it in the 'proto-writing' section of the history of writing article, but then insisted that we treat it as a full writing system. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am also of the opinion that nsibidi is writing, but we don't have any sources that are focused enough on the issue, which is what was concluded above, no? All the sources note it as a writing system, so either we take that and "ideographic", or we leave both and be neutral. That's not including other sources that note it as other things including true writing. On the history of writing, the issue is not yet resolved, so there was no need to start changing references to nsibidi all over wikipedia. You could add a tag.


 * I am fine with proto-writing, if there is a source for it. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Efik article is incorrect because it notes Ibibio, as well as other languages, as a dialect of Efik, which it is not. The issue was not whether the language family was called Efik or Ibibio, but with the Efik language being portrayed as a language of the whole of the Cross River, which it's not (an official language of Akwa Ibom State is Ibibio and not Efik for example), only the language family is conveniently called Efik because of historical reasons. The article should therefore inform readers that this is not the Efik language but the Efik language family, this will stop disputes from Ibibio language speakers who do not consider their language Efik, and rightly so, because the opposite seems to be the debating point. The page should be called Efik language family, and it should note down the languages under it, including Efik and Ibibio, as languages, not dialects. If there should be an Efik language article it should be done under the 'Efik language' which is under the Efik language family (as described by ethnologue). It is dubious to link Ibibio language to the Efik language. Ukabia - talk 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Efik language
 * This is a dialect cluster variously called 'Ibibio', 'Efik', 'Ibibio-Efik', and even 'Central Lower Cross'. It's been moved around on WP; until a few months ago, it was at "Ibibio", where I had moved it some time ago, but a good case was made that "Efik" is the more appropriate name, so I moved it there. Regardless, this cluster consists of several varieties, several called 'Ibibio' and one called 'Efik'. Some sources consider these varieties of a single language (Efik is the standard variety for all of them), others that they are distinct. This is a bit like Serbian vs Croatian vs Serbo-Croatian: no matter which name we choose, someone objects that it's "oppressing" them. If we go with Ukabia's wishes, we'll simply upset someone else. AFAICT, there is no one right answer, so it's a matter of what our sources say, not what Ukabia wants to be true. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the disputes from native speakers are not based on the name of the language group itself, but the idea of Efik being a language that Ibibio, as well as other languages, are a dialect of. The Efik language family (or maybe Efik languages) article can explain the issue with its naming and this would be an easier way to appease the speakers. There are already external disputes, as I said, as to whether Efik is a dialect of Ibibio, but I've already said that I have no problem with the language family being called Efik, but this has to clarified to the reader. If there were to be an 'Efik language family' article and then separate pages for the languages under it then the native speakers would be happy to have their language articles pop up whenever they do a search. This issue is similar to Ikwerre of which a large amount of speakers are displeased with any classification of it as an Igbo dialect, yet there has been little controversy over it being under the Igboid languages; of course there are sources that say Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo, but this has not been a problem. Efik and Ibibio are not considered the same language in Nigeria itself (list of languages in Nigeria, Efik language family), added with the strong ethnic identities that these groups have, it would be better to give the languages a chance to be separate articles under the 'Efik language family'. Another reason to clarify the difference between the language family and Efik is for the sake of other articles, especially those dealing with history, say, for example, the Aro confederacy which historically used Igbo and Ibibio. If we have Ibibio linking to the Efik language, or imply that Ibibio is a dialect of Efik, then this will just cause a whole lot of confusion. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone had bothered to write separate articles on Efik-proper and Ibibio-proper, that would be different. But no-one has. Lots of complaints, but no willingness to do the work required to resolve the issue. Meanwhile we have one language article, so that's the language article. And while your claim may be true, you have not provided good refs for it: Ethnologue divides varieties into 'languages' based on their requirements for scripture, which very often does not reflect what others consider separate languages. Many linguists comment that many of what E counts as 'languages' are not considered languages by anyone else. Meanwhile we have plenty of sources that treat them as a single language. There is therefore nothing wrong with presenting them that way. If you want things to be different, then write up separate articles for the various varieties of Ibibio-Efik. — kwami (talk)


 * UNESCO lists 415 Nigerian languages and lists Efik and Ibibio separately. pg. 4—5, pg. 7. Here's some history about the conflict concerning the Ibibio and Efik identities 3. What some Ibibo groups have to say:


 * "The Ibibio Language Writers Association (ILWA) is at the center of activities to promote and protect [...] Ìbìbiò, that is, proper, not mixed, Ibibio. It acts as liaison between the government and the people in these endeavors. The association tries to discourage code mixing Ibibio not only with English but also with Efik. It insists that 'Efik-Ibibio' or 'Ibibio- Efik' is a dead concept and counterproductive. To a large extent the discouragement of code-mixing Ibibio and Efik is effective, but code mixing English and Ibibio is very common, particularly among young bilinguals in informal situations. Government officials being interviewed on radio or television, for example, will restrain themselves from English code mixing."


 * The language family article shouldn't rely on the individual language articles' being created. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Igbo, we have refs, though unfortunately not very complete ones, about Igbo dialects. There are also lists of various cities, all of which are said to be "dialects", but of course they won't be equidistant. We need a dialectological account of Igbo. We have conflicting accounts of what the standard is based on; these portray a history of flitting from one dialect to another, but I suspect it may actually be that the standard has not changed, only the names for what it's based on. But it is unencyclopedic to say it's based on 'Central' Igbo, when Central Igbo is not one of the options among the dialects we list. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Central Igbo is gone, Standard Igbo has taken its place. Standard Igbo isn't based on Standard Igbo, but many pre-existing dialects. I thought the "standard forms" section of the infobox is asking for the name of the standard form instead of the dialects it's based on, otherwise there are a lot of dialects that need to be added to that section, and as you said, there are already conflicting accounts of what they are. I think it's better to leave it as 'Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo)', and if needed add it to the dialects list, and then leave the article to expand on what it is. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Standard Igbo" is fine, as long as we define what it is. Otherwise the term is meaningless. We can explain it in the text instead of the box, but we need to explain it somewhere. Also, I rather doubt it's based on "a lot" of dialects. Apart from minor elements of vocab, very few standard languages are, and when somebody says they are (see Filipino language, which is simply standardized Tagalog, but which the govt falsely insists is based on all of the languages of the Philippines), that's usually political BS rather than reality. Igbo may be an exception, but we'd need a good ref. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is what I've been saying. I agree. Ukabia - talk 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading this correctly, you are both basically happy with "proto-writing" and both in general agreement on the Igbo/Efik issue. If there's not a part of this that I'm still missing, would you both agree with me closing this thread now? I think we've seen that this board is not the best place for issues that need attention from experts, in any case. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no more objections and I've edited the articles to match the discussions. I think it's safe to say this dispute is closed now. Ukabia - talk 20:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language resolution
Resolved - all objections appear to have been dealt with, and the article has been updated accordingly. If any further mediation becomes necessary then it seems a good idea to have the discussion at WikiProject Writing Systems rather than here, as it needs input from people familiar with the field. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Kyle Bartley‎


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 content disupte over whether this footballer had one or two spells at a certain club; I have directed the two users in question to the article's talk page, where I have listed my evidence and opinion, and welcomed other input - none has been forthcoming. This is degenerating into a slow, lame edit war, with neither party willing to discuss.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

Posted (twice!) on both user's talk pages requesting comment, as well as iniating a discussion on the article talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Encourage the editors in question to use the article talk page to reach consensus, rather than blindly reverting one another.

GiantSnowman 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

It looks like had made his opinion about discussions very clear. GiantSnowman 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see Wicka wicka has since joined in the discussion at Talk:Kyle Bartley, so I don't think any more action is required here. I don't see this as anything more than a new user not being familiar with Wikipedia's many rules and guidelines, and I think we should try and give them the benefit of the doubt. I have left a little note on their talk page about the three-revert rule and consensus, just to make them aware of the relevant policies. Hopefully this should be enough to nudge them in the right direction. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already posted on their wall about 3RR and edit-warring - which they then removed. Many thanks for posting again though, hopefully this can be sorted ASAP. GiantSnowman 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he has also reverted your offer of help. GiantSnowman 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...aaaaand now been blocked. GiantSnowman 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I should probably have looked for that. If the edit warring continues after the block expires then we can have another think about what to do. I would suggest posting here if it's not severe or at WP:3RRN if it is. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's monitor developments for when the block expires, which should be soon. GiantSnowman 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Kyle Bartley‎ resolution
Resolved - user has not started editing again since their block expired. Feel free to post here again if there are more problems. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 05:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:mugginsx


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

At this diff I asked User:Mugginsx about a possible conflict of interest because of his/her repeated statements on a talk page about how he was a legal professional and therefore he knew best. S/he didn't answer there but discussed it an inappropriate forum. Today I shared some comments on the COI issue I got from someone else, i.e., it being more POV/Bias and problems with demanding we believe personal interpretations of video over that of multiple WP:RS. S/he deleted that section, leaving just my original comment. I then deleted my whole comment, which s/he reverted.

I couldn't find exact guidance for this situation under either Talk page guidelines or User_talk_page but I get the impression a) s/he has a right to delete or archive my whole comment, but not part of it (unless grossly offensive and insulting which it wasn't). And I have a perfect right to remove my own comment s/he never responded to.  Thoughts on this narrow issue of removal and not the whole WP:COI discussion itself? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

This should be a fairly clear cut policy matter - yet I cannot find exact policy statements, only easily debateable ones, so rather than debate ad nauseum with this individual I thought I'd bring it to some experts.


 * How do you think we can help?

Hopefully a quick resolution is possible.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This discussion is limited to the additions and deletions to Mugginsx's talk page. It is not about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of any claims of legal expertise made by the involved editors or about the particular edits under discussion at the BLP noticeboard. With that limitation understood, I can find no discussion of those additions and deletions. The guidelines of this noticeboard say, "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." Therefore, I believe that this dispute is not ripe for consideration here.

Let me say, however, that Though it's a long and involved argument, the main difference between a policy and a guideline is that it is much more difficult to get yourself blocked or banned for violation of a guideline than it is for violation of a policy. Unless you can show how Mugginsx's additions and deletions from his/her talk page were clearly and obviously intended to change the meaning of something you had said there, you are probably not going to get anywhere with this issue.
 * Per the WP:TPO guideline it is considered to be improper to edit or move another editor's comments for the purpose of changing their meaning, regardless of where those comments were made, even on one's own talk page, with quite a few exceptions set out there (none of which would appear to apply here).
 * Subject to that limitation, the WP:REMOVED guideline says that except for a few specific limitations set out there (which appear, again, to be inapplicable here) that a user may generally choose to remove any or all comments from his/her talk pages or blank them altogether. (It is to be noted, however, that removal constitutes acknowledgement that they have been read.)
 * There is no rule governing removal of one's own comments from a talk page other than one's own talk page, only a best practice saying that it is frowned upon. While that is contained in a guideline, it is clearly described as a best practice, not as something which must not be done.

Unless you can point me to some discussion on this issue, I will either close this discussion or allow it to roll off to the archive in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Transporterman: The edits are all in the same section "Conflict of Interest with paralegal job?" and were made by CarolMooredc on different days and different times and I have NOT revised any of her edits on my personal Talk page. I deleted them except for one paragraph made days earlier in response to ANOTHER noticeboard about me that she creating last week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS . That original edit, was made days before and retained in FULL. That noticeboard she created refers to a difference of opinion of a possible wp:BLP violation on a paragraph in the article and possible defamation in the references she used in that paragraph as well as the paragraph itself back in July 2011. I invite you to look at the diffs on my talk page to confirm this.  I was advised by veteran editors not to respond further to CarolMooredc's continuing personal comments to me on my Talk page and I found that was good advice and I took it.  In my opinion these noticeboards are being used to get attention and harass I am not going to participate further except to show you the respect of answering and invite you to my talk page to see the truth.  I am in good standing with Wikipedia and have never been blocked. I have nothing to hide.  Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not informed of the above alleged "harassment", but obviously had a feeling that Mugginsx would not reply and that is why I brought it here. I think the policy has been made clear but will not bother to go further, except perhaps to save the comments to my archives for future reference. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people


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

This article contains subjective POV and ethnocentric content. User:Wikisupporting added an ethnocentric point of view, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content #. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that this user not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing other objective, impartial and politically neutral academic theories about this article and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Importantly that this article be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

I wanted to edit this article, but due to the edit wars between the above mentioned users, the article has been fully protected indefinately.


 * How do you think we can help?

This article should be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. The article should not be fully protected indefinately, but semi-protected for certain periods, because fully protecting this article did not solve the dispute and the controversial content is still present.

Menikure (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people 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 now at WP:RSN and WikiProject Neutrality and Editor assistance/Requests and was added to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but removed as inappropriate. A request at WP:RPP for semi-protection with similar comments on an editor was declined. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't think it belongs here at all. I just checked and discovered that has never tried to discuss this on any talk page and indeed that Menikure has never responded to comments on his/her own talk page. At the top of this board it says "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.". I'm suggesting that this be taken to Talk:Zaza people. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people resolution
Referred back to the article talk page due to lack of any discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano


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


 * Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008:, and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".
 * In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”:
 * In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: and Debresser removed it:
 * On May 1, SD re-adds this category: and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again:
 * In June 11, after a month and a half of debate I re-add the cat: and Debresser immediately removes it again:
 * After a successful Afd, I link “Palestinian rabbi”: and Debresser reverts:
 * 10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: and Debresser straight away reverts:.
 * I am not sure how to go about his when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus?

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser.


 * How do you think we can help?

By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages.

Chesdovi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano 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
This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen at WP:AE.

Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. That is to say, even if that WP:AE thread doesn't force him to do so. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Menahem Lonzano resolution
The making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari


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 disagreement regarding the notability of a graduate of this university foundation. I believe the individual is notable and the other party believes they are not.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

Yes, we have discussed this on the talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please step in and end the edit war.

Thomanq (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I presume you mean Gulab Kothari. As both the editor-in-chief of a major newspaper and a published author, he is in my opinion clearly notable enough to be included in the list of notable graduates. (I see no current edit war over this issue, however. Mere discussion, even heated discussion, on an article talk page does not constitute an edit war.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, Gulab Kothari. I'm still stuck on that learning curve and I appreciate your guidance. Regards, Thomanq (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of fact tags against material with inline RS citation


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

I have placed the statement "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country...in 1983 using Emergency Regulations" in the above articles and provided an inline citation from TamilNet, a WP:RS. User:Cossde believes I need to provide secondary RS as TamilNet is an anti-government source and has threatened to remove the material. I believe this is unreasonable as one RS is more than enough - the statement isn't that controversial IMO. However, to placate User:Cossde I tried to find other sources but couldn't find any. I did however find neutral RS that would suggest the statement is correct. User:Cossde has dismissed my efforts as original research.

I have not taken this to WP:RSN as the reliability of TamilNet has been discussed a number of times there (e.g.) and each it was pointed out that TamilNet is a WP:RS according Wikipedia policy. This is essentially a dispute between User:Cossde and myslef.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

The issue has been discussed at Talk:Point Pedro Urban Council but we cannot agree.


 * How do you think we can help?

Is User:Cossde justified in asking for a secondary RS, particularly as I have provided evidence which suggests that the statement is correct?

 obi2canibe talk contr 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of fact tags against material with inline RS citation discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * Response from User:Cossde

Reason for request of secondary RS; Full para in question "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country, including PPUC, in 1983 using Emergency Regulations. As a result Point Pedro didn't have elected local government for the next 15 years."

Taken out of context the quoted lines by obi2canibe may seem harmless, however the para taken as a whole is critical of the Sri Lankan government hence controversial in nature. Due the source is anti government, the neutrality of this statement is in question. Further the first sentence is used as a reason for the conclusion of the second which in its own right to back up the claim. This para is repeated in all the above mentioned articles word-to-word. Cossde (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a neutral party in this dispute. Question to Cossde: You have said in a number of places that Tamilnet, "'is however listed as a pro-rebel/anti government source. Therefore, the information which is now in dispute must be backed up with a secondary RS'. Otherwise it will be removed as articles brought into question are accusations against the government leveled by an known anti government source.'"(Emphasis added.) Though being well-versed in Wikipedia policy and guidelines, I know of no policy or guideline which would allow an edit supported by a reliable source to be removed simply because it is biased and not supported by another, non-biased, reliable source. (While a second-source requirement such as this was proposed at the RSN noticeboard discussion about Tamilnet, it was not adopted.) Would you please specifically identify and provide a link to the policy or guideline or the consensus decision that requires such a second source? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply: WP:PRIMARY states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In this case the source TamilNet can be considered a primary source due to its "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history". Therefore the analyze and/or interpretation of the first sentenced (which is sourced) to gained powerful statement in the second is a clear violation of the said policy as it states " Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" . Cossde (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I'm sorry, but that does not answer my question. What policy or guideline requires a second source? Second , you are, in effect, arguing that you disagree with the consensuses formed at the RSN noticeboard discussion about Tamilnet and at WP:SLR that Tamilnet is a reliable source, though one which must be labeled with language such as "The pro-rebel Tamilnet says". (If the use which you are reverting does not use that language, then the action to take is to add that language, not to delete the edit.) If you disagree with Tamilnet being a reliable source, the proper way to address that is to raise the issue again at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or at WP:SLR and to try to form a new consensus to the contrary since consensus can change (or argue that no consensus was actually formed, that it was not binding, or had some other technical defect), but not to simply ignore the existing consensus merely because you do not like it or because you think that it is unfair. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIMARY is clear that a secondary source is needed support a primary one. Yes calls for removal of the first sentence is not possible here due to the lack of consensus at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. However deletion is possible of the second sentence which has no source but is derived from the first sentence which is a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Furthermore has Tamilnet been established as a secondary source as appose to a primary source ? Cossde (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Four points:
 * Criteria number 4 at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources addresses those types of sources which are primary sources. If Tamilnet had been identified under that criteria then it would not have been classified as a reliable source. (It is actually identified as a "qualified source," but SLR makes clear that qualified sources are reliable sources which must be qualified in the manner I described in my last posting above.)
 * The term "reliable source," when used in a general sense here, does not ordinarily include primary sources even though they can be used as adequate sources in some limited instances.
 * The Tamilnet-as-primary-source argument was mentioned in the RSN discussion, without result.
 * Finally, you are misreading WP:PRIMARY. What it says about second sources is, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." That arises from the rules which say that, in those instances when the use of primary sources is acceptable, that it is nonetheless unacceptable to interpret, synthesize, or analyze them. If interpretation is needed, then the only acceptable method is to provide a reliable secondary source which gives that interpretation — not a second source, but a secondary source. There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY which requires a second source for a non-interpretative legitimate use of a primary source.
 * Do you have some other policy or guideline which you feel requires a second source? Again, if you believe that Tamilnet should not be included in the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources list of reliable sources because you feel that it is a primary source you are free to make that argument there or at RSN, but not to delete it because you feel it is not a reliable source or is biased.  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I do agree with you, the main problem here is the reliable nature of the source. However the requirement of a second sources is, the controversial statement here that "The Sri Lankan government suspended all local government in the north and east of the country, including, in 1983 using Emergency Regulations". This theory is solely based on Tamilnet and as the editor as said that no-other RS couldn't be found to support this. The main stream belief on the lack of local government in the north and east during the said period is not one but several reasons. Therefore this new theory, which seem to be a conspiracy theory of sorts falls under WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE states that "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources"; thus brings about the need for an independent secondary source. Cossde (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But as TransporterMan points out, editors in WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has come to consensus that Tamilnet is RS. To argue it is FRINGE, I think you'd need other RSs that characterize it as such. In regard to The main stream belief on the lack of local government in the north and east during the said period is not one but several reasons, do you have sources for that statement? If so, it seems to me it would be not an issue of FRINGE, but rather due weight, but both interpretations would mostly likely need to be presented. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources are as follows;
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Cossde (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at some of these, but I'd ask you to be more specific about what you want to us these for. For example, the sunday time linke is an editorial, and we generally do not consider those RS. US state department is fine as a source, but what do you want to use from it? The Taipei Times article and the BBC article both look fine as a source, but neither seem to go into detail regarding suspension of the gov. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cossde's original assertion was that the text supported by Tamilnet must be supported by a second source merely because Tamilnet is a pro-rebel source, not because the text was a fringe theory. To now enter into a discussion of whether or not the text is a fringe theory is off-topic for this dispute. As it now stands, the assertion clearly does not require support from a second source and that should end this discussion. If Cossde wishes to try to support and obtain consensus for his fringe argument it should be developed on the various article talk pages (or on a single one with notes placed on the others about it), but until he is able to do so the Tamilnet citation is sufficient, alone, to support the text. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, as we have the various boards for a reason. I've struck my comments/questions. For what it's worth, I concur that the Tamilnet source need not be supported by other sources, and if other sources directly contradict Tamilnet, we should document the disagreement, rather than suppress one or the other. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the confusion in the above sources are due to the many main stream reasons that exist. These include, due to the civil war, calls for election boycotts by the LTTE (enforced with brutal reprisals for non compliance), areas coming under LTTE (who never lead elections) control, land mines as stated in the sources. The source  from the Daily Mirror which has been identified by the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources as a reliable sources that is non bias, clearly states the "In these areas the local government elections were not conducted for decades due to the civil war." This would clearly contradict the statement of the Tamilnet (known anti-government). Therefore leaving this statement which holds the state of emergency as the only reason for lack of local elections is a contradiction with multiple reliable sources. This contradiction is the reason for calls of  a secondary source to support it. On the least this discrepancy falls under WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Cossde (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This contradiction is the reason for calls of a secondary source to support it I am unaware of any policy or guideline that requires such support. As TransportMan pointed out, there are other noticeboards for the other issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then how shall we proceed on these articles with contradicting reasons as for the lack of local government elections. Cossde (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If we have conflicting reliable sources (and I'm not sure you do here, since the none of the ones I've check directly contradict the Tamilnet article, but I haven't checked them all), we document the disparity between the sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case lets do that. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Upul Tharanga


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

A dispute has arisen between User:Cossde and myself of whether to include a cricket players ban for doping violation in the article's lead. Upul Tharanga was banned from all cricket for three months by the International Cricket Council. I believe this is worth mentioning in the lead but User:Cossde disagrees. Cossde has argued (in the edit summaries) that "If every banned a player receives in his career were to be listed it will make a poor summary" and "So why isn't it on Sir Ian Botham's bio summary?" It is very rare for a cricketer to be banned for doping violations and the fact that other player's bans aren't included in their lead isn't an excuse for not including in the Upul Tharanga article.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

The issue has been discussed at Talk:Upul Tharanga but we cannot agree.


 * How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the doping violation should be included in the lead.

 obi2canibe talk contr 17:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Response from User:Cossde

As stated in the talk page (please refer), the incident in question did not gain much attention or controversy. The payer in question pleaded guilty of taking herbal medication which triggered the doping tests and he was suspended and I quote "the tribunal found that Tharanga had no intention to enhance his sporting performance or to mask the use of another performance enhancing substance, but that he had failed to satisfy the high levels of personal responsibility implicit upon him as an international cricketer subject to anti-doping rules." Therefore I am of the understanding that this is not an incident of significance that merits placement in the lead section. Therefore addition of this would be blowing it out of proportion simply because if one were to add suspension payers got (specially in Cricket) it would had up to alot of sentences in the lead section thus compermizing its objective. Further it must be noted that this is an bio of a living person. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a neutral in this dispute. In light of the fact that the doping agency has made an explicit finding that he did not intend to use the drugs to enhance performance, this does not seem to me to be worthy of being mentioned in the lede and, indeed, would be giving undue weight to it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case, I accept it shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hercules (emulator)


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

Is calling something "free software" POV-pushing?

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

Talk page discussion on both article and Palosirkka's talk page


 * How do you think we can help?

The article was written with NPOV firmly in mind. The authors of the Hercules emulator do not support the concept of "free software" and all of the baggage that goes with it, and feel that calling Hercules "free software" pushes the "free software" POV espoused by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.

This has cropped up before, and the consensus (as evidenced by the fact that the association was not restored after discussion ) was to not associate Hercules with "free software". Palosirkka seems to be intent on making the association. Rather than edit war, and since discussion seems to be getting exactly nowhere, and since I do represent a potential COI, I'm asking for help from others.

Jay Maynard (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)M

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


 * The article is not written in neutral language as suggested above. The term "open source" is mentioned many times. The term "free software" was entirely absent before my edit.


 * The opinion of the subject of Wikipedia articles does not dictate how Wikipedia articles are written. At no point does the article suggest that Mr. Maynard or anybody else having to do with the emulator endorses the term in question.


 * I don't see any concensus anywhere.


 * Palosirkka (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jay Maynard, with your obvious Conflict of Interest do you really think it is a good idea to be making any direct changes to this article or carrying out percieved consensus from discussions? (Hint: No)

Based on the facts that the software is licenced under Q Public Licence and as that article states it is a Free Software Licence. It's now what the developers of the software think in terms of political baggage, it's what does the licence say and what will random readers of the page look for when reading the page. Hasteur (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I asume you mean "not", not "now"... As I ask in the talk page, does that mean I can call gcc "open source" software, then? If I do, the FSF will shoot me, and legions of their followers will come to their defense and rip the term out of the article. As I said on the talk page, if "open source" is POV-pushing - and I'll readily grant the possibility - the answer is to remove the POV, not add statements pushing the alternate.
 * It's obvious to anyone who's knowledgeable at all about the subject that "free software" is a politically loaded term with a definite POV. Palokirkka even admits as much when he calls it s "social movement". We are not part of that movement, and explicitly disclaim any intention to be a part of it. Using "free software" to describe Hercules does indeed put words in the developers' mouths.
 * I agree I'm too close to the question to make the call myself. That's why I came here. If you look, I haven't made that many changes to the Hercule page, aside from updating release numbers and other factual information - and this subject.
 * I guess the larger question - which is the reason I came here - is: Does Wikipedia take a side in the "free software" vs. "open source" war? If so, which, and why? If not, how do we express the idea in the article that the software is freely available and modifiable and redistributable without pushing either POV? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I work with Software of both self-described stripes every day. Would you be willing to accept the Open Source category? It links the important information, yet avoids the "militant" reading of Free,Libre, Open Source Software? Hasteur (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. If that's acceptable as an NPOV answer to the issue, then I'm all for it. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take on the free software/open source software question. At Wikipedia we do not take sides - rather we use the terms that are used by reliable third-party sources. If there is a term that has a clear majority, then we use that. If there is any notable dispute or disagreement in these reliable third-party sources, then we acknowledge that and we describe the dispute using neutral language. If the majority of the sources say that Hercules is open source, then we should call it open source too. If they say it is free software, then we should say that instead - it really just depends on the sources. In my experience, most software of this type is referred to as "open source", with "free software" reserved for that software that is consciously regarded as politically "free" by its developers. But that's just my experience - as I say, it's what the sources call it that counts. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The licence they're using isn't FREE.  I changed the category from Free Software to Open Source Software earler to help facilitate the distinction. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, I see. I was confused by your statement above where you said it was free. This might be a case of a small typo, but a big change in meaning? Anyway, calling it open source seems a much better option now that you've pointed that out. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 00:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything more from Palosirkka. I assume that he's fine with the resolution. Can we put a pointer to this discussion on the article's talk page so that, the next time it comes up, other editors will see we've been over this ground and not reopen the same thing over again? -- Jay Maynard (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. But once this goes archived, you can put a pointer on the article's talk page to the archival version with restoring consensus for any drive by editor (Random IP addresses, Single edit acocunts, etc.)  If they open a discussion, all editors involved are obligated to discuss. Hasteur (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hercules (emulator) resolution
The solution to remove the free category and add the open source category appears to have stuck. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivil remarks by DataBasss
Dispute overview This concerns the linked archive discussion where the user highlighted a section in the King ov Hell article that was deemed to be negative and therefore removed by an admin. While I do not have the time to resume discussion concerning the original dispute, I wish to raise the matter of this after not having had the time to follow up especially while I was revising for university exams:
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
 * King ov Hell bio

'A quick search of Google can show that the poster of the content, username "Dark Prime", has made a career of posting untrue or otherwise disparaging comments about the subject throughout the internet simply for the purpose of causing harm.'

I myself would like to register that I am at variance with the user's explanation and description of my activities without elaborating on such assertions and showing proper scrutiny, and if that was not necessary at the time then an absolute and categorical statement was not warranted at all. For now I should register that the Google search in question should show that in most cases I have readily substantiated my comments according to how much and how well I have comprehended the subject over time - citing and weighing both primary and secondary source material - which may contradict the claims of the user, and will readily provide more detailed refutations of the user's descriptions of myself as "causing harm" and "posting false and disparaging comments" if prompted.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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


 * How do you think we can help?

As stated this concerns a dispute dating back to early April 2011, but I have not had time to follow up on matters until now, and since then relevant discussion has been accordingly archived. As the user proceeded with the aforementioned described matter, I have felt I ought to use this sphere to address the matter. As I am not sure if the user has been active on wikipedia since the incident four months ago after having looked at his contributions page, I would appreciate it if somebody could contact the user on behalf as I am not sure who I should raise this with otherwise.

Dark Prime (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Incivil remarks by DataBasss discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * I observe that no talk page discussions have been opened. That really needs to take place prior to opening a thread here.
 * I observe that you haven't notified the other user, as you're required to do.
 * Finally, the other user hasn't edited since April. I think letting this go would be the best solution for the time being Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony characters


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

Well I got a really serious problem in my hands about the List of My Little Pony characters page. And I think it's due to multiple reasons about adding newer info and characters. It was going on well and I want the whole page to remain in canon only and without Vandalism, even engaging in an all out Edit War. But is that there are too much info added that were either wasn't concrete or it seriously fake and is in fanon only. I had enough re-editing this page everytime I went to Wikipedia.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

The anonymous IPs listed were doing a bad job on the page. Sometimes being disruptive. Tama Fan is doing a good job, but the info she added were not so concrete and I need to remove or improve those.

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

I didn't. I was so angry about the anonymous editors on the vandalism that I just revert everything a vandal did.


 * How do you think we can help?

Do something about the verifiability of all the My Little Pony Characters written there. And also this Vandalism needs to stop, I had enough reverting things. Also, I wish the page would remain in canon with all the characters involved. I'm sorry if I bother you on this.

Blackgaia02 (Talk if you&#39;re Worthy) (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony characters discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

One of the risks of taking something to dispute resolution or anywhere outside the article and talk page you are concerned about is that it will boomerang on you. This has already happened to you in this case and I'm going to close this request for unclean hands and insufficient discussion on the talk page, but before I do I want to point out that virtually everything on the page in question is unverified and the sources given for the few things which are verified are not acceptable reliable sources. As a result, virtually everything on that page is subject to being deleted at any time because everything on Wikipedia must be supported by a reference to a reliable source. If you want to preserve that page, you would be much better served by spending your time adding reliable sources than defending your improper ownership vision of the page. If what is being added by the other editors, especially but not only the IP editors, is indeed vandalism (which I've not confirmed one way or the other, but have some doubts about, nonetheless), then you must not edit war over their entries but either (or both) seek to have those editors blocked through the Edit War Noticeboard or by requesting page protection. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1


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

The main editor (User:Calvin999) of an article I nominated for good article reassessment engaged in what I believe is a clear case of votestacking, then asked administrator User:Fastily to close the discussion after one day, though the process normally takes a month. Fastily is amenable to Calvin's request and it seems will close the discussion in about 12 hours. I objected that Calvin's votestacking led to false consensus, and later posted the evidence, but Fastily is unmoved and has instead labeled my charge an "egregious" accusation of foul play. Another administrator (User:Efe) recognized the votestacking, to which Calvin replied, "You can't just single me out for votestacking, because everyone else does it."

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

All I could do to resolve this was point out the evidence of votestacking and hope Fastily would realize his/her mistake, but it hasn't happened. I contacted Efe in the hope that another administrator's view would carry more weight than my own with Fastily, but he suggested broader participation. Thus, here I am.


 * How do you think we can help?

I am looking for respected administrators to show Fastily his/her mistake and encourage him/her to remove him/herself from the GAR. (This is not just so the GAR can be extended. If one of you feels consensus has still been achieved there aside from the votestacking, I do not object to its closing.) You might also weigh in on whether it's proper for someone directly involved in a GAR to request that someone else close it, since no changes to the article's status will occur anyway while the discussion is active. I would also appreciate respected administrators' help in showing Calvin that votestacking is not acceptable no matter how many others may be engaging in it.

 Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Uninvolved comment Although vote stacking clearly did occur, perhaps you should've waited for Fastily to 1) See the latest comments since you linked the actual diffs of vote stacking, and 2) To actually take action. Since he has done neither, this is a preemptive request for resolution on a disputed action that hasn't occurred yet.  Even thought vote stacking has occurred, they have succeeded in disputing your rationale.  The best outcome you could expect from this is that the discussion is closed as no consensus in which case it would remain a GA.  I suggest you quietly back out of this.--v/r - TP 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Fastily did see my posting of the diffs based on his/her later replies to other threads.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Believing and knowing are not synonymous. Additionally, I'm an uninvolved administrator.  I'd be happy to close it instead of Fastily per your comments "If one of you feels consensus has still been achieved there aside from the votestacking, I do not object to its closing.".  However, I'll tell you right now that my close would be in favor of keeping the article as a GA despite the vote stacking and I do not feel Fastily has made a mistake that I would care to show him the error thereof.--v/r - TP 15:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I have to present the evidence myself lest an administrator conclude that my accusation of votestacking is "egregious"? Wouldn't it be prudent for Fastily look at Calvin's contributions before drawing a conclusion? Two other administrators had no problem recognizing it.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 15:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As the nominator of the Wait Your Turn GAN, I believe I should be able to reply to this proposal. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon! 15:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Calvin999
 * 1) I disagree that it is a "clear case of votestacking", because I have not directly asked people to Oppose your GAR. I asked people (who I know and don't know) to simply place their vote (Support or Oppose) and take part in the discussion. It was up to those individuals to decide whether or not they wanted to Support or Oppose and they did it of their own free will. There is a huge difference between this and me telling people to Oppose, which I did not do in any way, shape or form.
 * 2) You have a problem with me asking for the GAR to be closed (as there are 9 Opposes and 0 Supports) after one day, but you nominated for GAR just 1 hour and and 21 minutes after the article was passed.
 * 3) A "false consensus" is not the case. As I just said, the editors who voted did it of their own free will, and unanimously voted Oppose.
 * 4) I get requests all the time for people asking me to comment on Afd's, and have also been asked to comment on FAC. GAR is no different.
 * 5) I still fail to see how you do not realise that the article was up for GAN and not FAC. You seem to have your own criteria for GAN and think that even non-existent information should be included (with regard to Background info). Everyone is telling you that you are wrong in this decision and that you have your own GAN criteria opinions on what an article should consist of, yet you still refuse to accept that you are wrong on this. You can't even find any more info about the Background (which you were so confident existed), so now you are trying to delay the delisting that you want by blaming me for "votestacking".
 * Comment from someone recently involved I feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding by most parties participating on how GARs should work. The article is a good article that has been put up for community assessment. Editors (any editors) look at the article, list problems against the criteria and then allow interested editors (usually the nominators) a chance to fix the problem. Any early keep and delist votes are largely irrelevant and if problems exist that have not been fixed the number of keeps is immaterial. Calvin did votestack, but it should ultimately not matter as long as the review is closed correctly and does not count votes. In fact having more editors working to fix an article is not a bad problem. The recent discussion between the two editors has taken a turn for the positive at the page as both seem to be working together looking for sources to address one of the disputed criteria. AIR corn (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this comment. The fact that I asked people to simply take part in the discussion is irrelevant, if I had of directly asked them to Oppose, I would be able to see your point, but I didn't, so I don't. And since when has "the two editors has taken a turn for the positive" taken place? Assuming I am one of them. Not that any of this matters now, the GAR was closed and the decision was Keep. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Notifying editors who have a better chance of agreeing with your opinion is just as bad and every bit of canvassing as asking editors to oppose. See CANVASS.  While your "Message" didn't ask folks to !vote oppose, your "Audience" was partisaned toward editors who contributed to the GA.  That is canvassing and not amount of your insistance that it was not will change that.--v/r - TP 17:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I asked a range of people. Some I know who had and hadn't been involved with the GAN, plus I asked some who I don't even know. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe you that you did not intend to canvass. Here is what I know.  Between 1003 and 1004 23 August (CDT) you notified the following users of the GA reassessment that you know well as they have editted on your talkpage a minimum of 14 times and upwards of 184.


 * Then 3 hours later at 1311 to 1312 (CDT) you notified 5 more people. I suspect you realized you were in violation of WP:CANVASS and were attempted to cover your tracks so you could use the excuse you gave above about not knowing some of the folks you canvassed.


 * Spiceitup08
 * PancakeMistake
 * Ipodnano05
 * Another Believer0
 * Ozurbanmusic


 * If your intention wasn't to canvass, why did it take you 3 hours to notify the last 5 editors?--v/r - TP 19:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know that the term "votestacking" even existed on here. THR said that I have only asked people I know, so I asked people I don't know as a response. I don't see why this is still a problem. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the issue has died (and THR should ask that this be closed because it appears it has), this really isn't a problem anymore. But please don't do it again in the future.--v/r - TP 02:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

PP-2000


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

A while back I had changed the description of this weapon to machine pistol, seeing as, - The unabreviated "PP" means "machine pistol" or "automatic pistol" in Russian. - The weapon is pistol-like in form - The weapon is one-handed.

Other weapons, such as the mac-10, which is almost the same size, are classified as machine pistols by wikipedia. It was then reverted in the next edit by 98.210.0.71 under the reason that "Just because call of duty says it's a machine pistol doesn't mean it is" (Paraphraphsing) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=412067598&oldid=403173171) Ignoring the fact that that statement is unnecessarily aggressive and assumes that that was my reasoning. I feel that its also noteworthy to mention that the "see also" section links to the TMP (which stands for Tactical Machine pistol) MP9 (which is based off of the TMP), VP70 and m9-r, the latter two which are unarguably machine pistols.

I explained how the weapon's name meant machine pistol, reverted the page back to how it was when I first edited it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=413011457&oldid=412067598) Apparently, It stayed that way with other edits not messing with it for about 7 edits, till the same ISP as before now edited it to say ASSAULT RIFLE, which is clearly incorrect (The weapon does not fire rifle carditrges, nor has the barrel length, or other features of assault rifles) and could possibly be seen as vandalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PP-2000&action=historysubmit&diff=417886718&oldid=417545138)

From the page history, it seemed this sitrred a small edit war until someone changed it to both say Machine pistol and SMG, which is how it was the last time I checked this page.

Now I see that it has been again reverted. To be clear, I understand that it shares chartistics with sub machine guns, and is primarily regarded as one. I feel it should be catgorized as both a SMG and machine pistol.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

I am both editor 24.154.119.139 and 69.132.69.87. I do not know why I have two IP addresses.

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

I put forth evidence after the initial revert after my initial edit, and have created a section on the talk page on the matter.


 * How do you think we can help?

Hopefully either refer this to a more apt process for resolution, or provide a descion to resolve the isse.

69.132.69.87 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

PP-2000 discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I'm pretty sure this is going to be summarily closed, seeing as how so far there is no substantial discussion on the article's Talk page. I'd recommend making an attempt to get other editors involved there first. You may also wish to contact any project pages that the article is associated with...those are listed on the Talk page as well. Doniago (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doniago is right - this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page before it can be brought here. I see you have started a thread there but that it hasn't generated any response yet, and I also see that there hasn't actually been any recent activity on the page. I suggest putting your preferred wording back in the article and seeing if other editors join in the talk page discussion. Probably that will be the end of the matter, but if any problems happen after that feel free to post back here again. You might also want to read our policies on consensus and edit warring to see how the discussion process here usually works, and I also recommend the essay "bold, revert, discuss" for a good model of how to edit to form consensus. I'll close this thread later on today after you have had a chance to read my message. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will go and read the things you suggested, and do the things you and they advise. (I really need to remember to sign in) Jabberwock xeno (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Best of luck with your editing. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

PP-2000 resolution
Closed due to lack of discussion on the article's talk page. The reporter is following steps to resolve the issue there. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis


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

Need some independent assistance to resolve a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Refer to []. Fut Perf is stone-walling me with severe WP:ICANTHEARYOU despite my providing irrefutable WP:RS. I feel as though Fut Perf is ignoring my well-researched comments. I need independent assistance to resolve this issue either way. Ideally somebody that has never been involved with Balkans-related subjects. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Future Perfect at Sunrise is either ignoring me or does not understand English. I have provided WP:RS evidence which is being ignored. Lunch for Two has a specific agenda and by selectively quoting WP:RS justifies their specialised POV. However, Lunch for Two also selectively ignores content in WP:RS to justify that POV.

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

1. I have discussed this issue carefully on the talkpage. I am being stonewalled, ignored, and have been treated fairly poorly, notably by Fut Perf (which is something that I have grown accustomed to, i.e. it is normal behaviour for Fut Perf). Moreover, Fut Perf entered the discussion belligerently by accusing me of edit-warring when there is no evidence of this on the article's history. It can be noted that I have carefully avoided edit-warring despite unsubstantiated rvs. 2. I placed a tag at the top of the article concerning the article's accuracy (which was deleted by Fut Perf before making any effort to discuss what the dispute concerning the article's accuracy was). 3. I also suggested that instead of a Wikilink to a specific Slavic language (with a specific ethnicity) that the Wikilink be directed to Slavic languages (which does not claim any specific ethnicity). This seemed like a more than reasonable way to resolve the dispute. But neither Fut Perf or Lunch for Two agree. Even though the WP:RS Eleftherotypia newspaper article makes it absolutely clear that the origin of the Slavic cannot be ethnically attributed. 4. Have also discussed the issue with Lunch for Two on my own talkpage. I have been incredibly patient in these discussions despite being ignored. 5. Part of the problem is that some words that have very specific meanings in the Greek language are interpreted with very different meanings in the languages of neighbouring countries. Another part of the problem is the poor quality of some of the references cited that are being used to justify points of view. 6. I also put the article up for AfD. The article survived AfD despite failing to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN and violating WP:BLP. And have made every effort (have bent over backwards) to improve the quality of the article throughout the process. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 03:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you think we can help?

Just need a cool, calm, independent voice to decide the issue either way. The evidence that I have provided is from the self-same WP:RS used to justify non neutral POV. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The Eleftherotypia article is very clear that Kostas Novakis has collected songs that are sung by the Slavic population of northern Greece / Greek Macedonia / the region between Florina and Thessaloniki. These songs are therefore, at least predominantly, in Slavic dialects of Greece, and more precisely in those of the region. It appears (from the WP article I just linked) that all of these dialects fall into the dialect continuum of the Macedonian and Bulgarian language(s).

In a purely Greek context these dialects can be referred to simply as "Slavic", but in our international context this is not appropriate because the Slavic languages form a large family that goes way beyond Macedonian/Bulgarian and includes Russian, Polish, Slovenian etc. Technically, we could refer to these dialects as Eastern South Slavic dialects, but that is not really helpful for our readers.

Presumably Novakis is not singing in either Bulgarian or Macedonian standard language. Precise classification of the dialect(s) in question is probably tricky, especially under NPOV constraints, and I guess that we do not have sufficient reliable sources for that. It's not even clear to me whether Novakis sings all songs in his own dialect or whether he sings in the dialects of the people from whom he learned them. (Most likely the truth is somewhere in between.)

We have reliable sources from the Republic of Macedonia which claim that he sings in Macedonian, but I would not take them too seriously as they are not impartial on dialect classification. It's important to get this right, or at least NPOV, because of the close ties between language and ethnicity. What we need is a neutral word either for the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect continuum, or for the part of it which exists in Greek Macedonia. For the former I know only "Eastern South Slavic", which is not helpful. For the latter, "Macedonian Slavic" is a reasonable approximation. However, Macedonian Slavic is a redirect to Macedonian language, which is not what we need here as it connotes the Republic of Macedonia rather than Greek Macedonia.

As there is no perfect solution, I suggest Macedonian Slavic as a reasonable compromise. Note that this is piped to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, the redirect target of Slavic dialects of Greece. Hans Adler 03:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Macedonian Slavic, that is currently Wikilinked within the article, is ethnically attributable to the "Republic of Macedonia". It excludes Bulgarian and Bulgaria is also an origin of the Slavic used in the Macedonian region of Greece. It also excludes Serbia. I do not think that it is reasonable to Wikilink to an article that claims ethnic attribution. Moreover, the music that the songs are sung to has more in common with the music of Bulgaria. However, I agree that linking to Slavic dialects of Greece is acceptable. Although I am not convinced that calling it Macedonian Slavic is since this regularly appears to be misinterpreted as the ethnic language of the "Republic of Macedonia" whilst in Greece use of "Slavomacedonian" is unambiguous and is not the ethnic language of any country.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 03:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not ideal. There is a reason for this editing conflict, and it's the fact that there is no easy solution, rather than the characters of editors. Unfortunately we can't say "Greek Macedonian Slavic" either, because it's so absurd. While I have travelled in this stunningly beautiful region, I am not at all an expert for it, and least of all for its Slavic dialects. Maybe someone else finds a better compromise, but given that the problem is relatively recent (until recently we would simply have spoken of Bulgarian dialects), I am afraid I don't have much hope that an appropriate term exists.
 * The problem with "Slavomacedonian" is that it is an ethnicity (apparently rejected by some Greek speakers of dialects of Macedonian), not a language. But we really need a term for language. While Novakis' choice of language is of course important for reasons of ethnicity, he is still singing in language, not in ethnicity. Hans Adler 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input Hans. I think that Slavic dialects of Greece is a very good suggestion. Even though the article Slavic dialects of Greece is an article that needs to be improved.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 04:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

To Hans Adler: I quite agree that "Macedonian Slavic" is a reasonable naming choice in this context. It's precisely the solution that's now in the article, introduced by me. The only remaining question is what target article to link this to. Linking it to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia might have looked like a reasonable solution a while ago, but currently that article is a huge and rather problematic page full of history and politics but has hardly any information about actual linguistics, so it's not a good target from a context where language is the only issue. Is it legitimate to link it to Macedonian language? Yes, I maintain it is. We have plenty of reliable sources for the proposition that the dialects of the area Novakis works in are commonly classified as part of that language today by linguists (linguistically, not politically). "Macedonian Slavic" is known to be a common alternative designation for "Macedonian". And even if we want to be super-careful and take into account that the assignation to a standard language like that is sometimes not a matter of objective truth but a matter of subjective construal, then the best person to ask what language this is part of is Novakis himself. And here I must correct you: we have not only sources from the Republic of Macedonia claiming that he sings in Macedonia, we have a literal quotation of Novakis himself quoted in a Greek newspaper where he calls his language Macedonian. In light of this, I see no reason to avoid the link, when basically the only reason to avoid it is the well-known ideological allergy against the term felt by some in Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I now notice that the unpiped link Macedonian Slavic has in fact existed for just this kind of situation for ages. It is a redirect not to the Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia article, but to the "Macedonian Slavic in Greece" section within the Macedonian language article. That's a perfectly reasonable target in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I have no problem with your solution, but I slightly prefer mine. Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia explains early on (though unfortunately not in the lead): "They speak East South Slavic dialects that can be linguistically classified as either Macedonian or Bulgarian". That's just what we need. Most readers won't need more, and for the others Macedonian language is only one click away (as is Bulgarian language). And the article's focus on ethnicity isn't so bad either, as it describes the background of the situation which, according to the Eleftherotypia article, makes the case of Novakis interesting. Hans Adler 07:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The section in the Macedonian language article explains the same things, much more concisely and to the point, and does so in the direct neighbourhood of other relevant linguistic information, so I believe it's by far the preferable target here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that Nipson believes the whole notion of being ethnically Macedonian is "proposterous" and that it is "an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo.", the issue then moves to Nipson's claim that he does not sing in the Macedonian language (The existence of which he also refused to acknowledge).
 * It is highly likely that Mr Novakis identifies as an Ethnic Macedonian. I base this assertion on the fact that he is a member of the "Centre for Macedonian Culture" an ethnic Macedonian group operating in Northern Greece which has been denied registration from the Greek government. Furthermore by his own admission "The observation of the tradition and the Macedonian folklore are in my blood since childhood.", and the context makes it clear that in this case it refers to "ethnic" Macedonian folklore, and not that of other Macedonians. He was an honoured guest at the "All Macedonian Congress" held every year by ethnic Macedonians born in Greece who now live in the Republic of Macedonia.
 * The next issue is what langauge he sings in. Nipson has consistently claimed that he sings in either "Bulgarian", "Serbian" or some other Slavic language. Nipsons claims are unfounded and there is solid evidence showing that Novakis sings in Macedonian. By his own admission he sings in the "dialect of the Aegean Part of Macedonia/јас ги испеав на дијалектот од егејскиот дел на Македонија.", which is the way a lay person (non-linguist I should say) would refer to his/her language in the given context as one of many Macedonian language dialects. Furthermore, Novakis' CD's are viewable here use the Standard Macedonian language, not a local Aegean Macedonian dialect, nor any other Slavic language (Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.). To use terms such as "Slavic dialects of Greece" does not reflect this reality of this where the individual has chosen to associate himself with 'the Macedonian language' and not simply "Slavic dialects" (Slavika, etc.) as one would have it. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, could you point out particular linguistic features that mark the language used on the CDs as Standard Macedonian as opposed to local dialect? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On the front cover or including the booklet also? (which is accessible here) Lunch for Two (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take "Belo pole do Beloto More/Бело поле до Белото море" (White field to the white sea). Per Stoikov page 184 in that region окото/okoto becomes окто/okto, and лицето/liceto becomes лицто/licto. This applies to all neuter particibles (including Belo, Lice and Oko and more (basically all that can end in -to)), taking this into account you would expect to see "Belto more" as opposed to "Beloto more". Furthermore the use of "Ponuda od Solun/Понуда од Солун" is another example, you would expect locals to pronounce it as "ot/от" instead. The use of the 'dz' in "Ogreala jasna dzvezda" is an example of the Macedonian literary letter "Ѕ" in action (well transliterated into the latin form), many dialects just say "Zvezda". The copyright on the CD is also clearly in Standard Macedonian. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, makes sense. I guess that should settle it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. All of this sounds pretty conclusive. Hans Adler 08:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How is that conclusive? Although you cannot use the CDs as a primary source. It is very clear on the CDs that the language used is Slavic and there is no claim of any ethnic orientation of that Slavic. Moreover, the Eleftherotypia article makes it clear that the ethnic origin of the singers is not always Slavic, many identify as ethnically Greek (i.e. Greek Civil War refugees who have returned to Greece from neighbouring Slavic countries), and that the origin of the Slavic could be from any neighbouring Slavic country. Moreover, what difference does it make what Slavic Kostas Novakis uses personally to write some or all of the titles on the CD? That is no evidence concerning the actual origin of the songs. They sing similar songs in Serbia and Bulgaria. In fact, I have read evidence that one of the songs is almost identical to a song that is sung in Serbia. Likewise the music itself is very similar to music played in Bulgaria. That really is not conclusive at all. The Eleftherotypia article makes that very clear. Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the main reason why this issue has been brought to dispute resolution. For no reason whatsoever you have convinced yourself that a Macedonian from Greece sings Serbian songs to the tune of Bulgarian music because ethnic Greek-speaking refugees exiled after the Greek Civil War brought these songs back to Greece in the 1980s from "Slavic" countries they escaped to and somehow planted these songs into the folklore of people from a Macedonian speaking background.
 * I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life and this is the reason why, frankly, everyone's time has been wasted debating over and over again at User talk:Nipsonanomhmata, Talk:Kostas Novakis and now here. This travesty is beginning to sounds like a case worthy of being mentioned at WP:LAME. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Especially since the whole question of what the "ethnic" "origin" of the songs is is still a phantom issue that has been taking place exclusively in Nipson's mind. The article doesn't speak about where they "originated" (if that is even a meaningful category), nor about what "ethnic orientation" the singers or their language has. (BTW, what the heck is an "ethnic orientation" of a language supposed to be anyway?) The article has never made any claims about such things, and of course doesn't need to. Nipson has plucked this whole alleged dispute out of thin air. The only legitimate question has always been how to describe the language the songs are being sung in, and we have certainly settled that now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Refer to CD cover and contents. It says that the songs are Slavic. Eleftherotypia says: "Συχνά, επρόκειτο για ντόπια τραγούδια που είχαν ήδη ηχογραφηθεί στη γειτονική μας χώρα, από πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες του Εμφυλίου, κι «επανεισαχθεί» κατόπιν στις γενέτειρές τους." Rough translation (to save time): "Commonly, local songs that were written/recorded in a neighbouring country, by political refugees of the [Greek] Civil War, and the songs were returned to their native country." Even the geographical origin of the songs, and the ethnic origin of the singers, is disputed in the Eleftherotypia article. Here is a Google translation of the same para. "Often, local songs were already recorded in our neighboring country, political refugees from the Civil War, and "reinstated" following in their hometown." i.e. according to this translation Greek refugees of the civil war actually saved Slavic songs from extinction. Meanwhile, you are both wikilinking to an article of a specific language that claims a specific ethnicity using the same references to back it up. Your POV is selective.   Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. He's really not getting the point. Of course there is nothing "disputed" in the article. Nipson is also again mistranslating the Greek. It's "στη γειτονική μας χώρα", with a definite article, "in the neighbouring country" (which obviously refers to only one specific country, Yugoslav Macedonia), and he also omitted "κατόπιν" (it means "later"). Nothing in that sentence poses any difficulty: songs were from Greek Mac., emigrants took them to Yug. Mac., singers recorded them in Yug. Mac., people adopted them again in Greek Mac. from those recordings. No dispute, nothing. And it is still true that our article never even raised any issue about geographical provenance, let alone ethnic provenance. Nipson is also evidently not even reading the target article he complains about. "An article of a specific language that claims a specific ethnicity"?? The section redirect from Macedonian Slavic goes to a place where it very explicitly states that it's "today usually classified as part of the Macedonian language ... However, the codification of standard Macedonian has been in effect only in the Republic of Macedonia, and the Slavonic dialects spoken in Greece are thus practically "roofless" ... Unlike in the Republic of Macedonia, many speakers of the language in Greece choose not to identify ethnically as "Macedonians", but as ethnic Greeks... ". What the heck more does Nipson want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Making excuses about the translation doesn't work Fut Perf. During the Greek Civil War the neighbouring countries were Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. There was no "Republic of Macedonia". Nowhere in the Eleftherotypia article or the CDs does it credit the origin of the songs to a specific country and it does not credit "Yugoslav Macedonia" whatever that is. It just credits them as Slavic and that they were recorded in the Macedonian region of Greece. If the songs were Yugoslavian they could just as easily include Serbian and Croatian songs. In fact, there is a village in what is now Croatia with a name similar to Novakis' surname. You are inventing reasons to attribute ethnicity.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png Red Herring.png. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your attempt at attributing ethnicity is yet another red herring. Well spotted.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 15:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "There was no "Republic of Macedonia". See Socialist Republic of Macedonia. "In fact, there is a village in what is now Croatia with a name similar to Novakis' surname." Wow! Is there? So what? Paul B (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not recognised internationally as an independent country. It was part of Yugoslavia under Tito.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this now please? It must have become clear to all outside observers that no reasoned debate can be had with this person, so there is no sense in continuing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to consider that the Bulgarian Slavs are also utterly irrelevant?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Nipson, lets leave it at that. Kostas Novakis must simply be a pure ethnic Greek from Greece who learnt Croatian/Serbian/Bulgarian songs from Greek Civil War era returned refugees, and then chose to incorporate these Croatian/Yugoslavian/Slovenian?/Slavoserbian?/Sorbian?/Kashubian?/Old Church Slavonic? songs into his folklore and went to a place called "Skopje" to subsequently publish CD's written in some bizarre "Slavic" language. Nipson, you have effectively brought an end to the discussion. I see no point in commenting here further. Lunch for Two (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. User:Nipsonanomhmata's most recent comments enter surreal territory. Nothing is gained by continuing the pretence that there is a meaningful discussion taking place. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments! What about the Eleftherotypia quote? And what Kostas Novakis has said himself. Moreover, if we go back to just before the First World War what ethnicity are you going to claim then. It is ludicrous to claim a specific ethnicity when no WP:RS reference supports that claim. You are ignoring the evidence that I have provided. You are denigrating my contribution to this discussion which is well researched. It is not reasonable to use a reference, as a WP:RS, and ignore content within the self-same reference.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Kostas Novakis resolution
Result: Outside opinion provided, one important fact clarified through sensible discussion, consensus confirmed between everybody except the original filing party. Everybody agrees further debate with original filer is fruitless. Article remains at status quo; if Nipsonanomhmata chooses to further pursue the dispute, this will go to WP:AE with a charge of general disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is unacceptable that Fut Perf makes the resolution. Fut Perf is one of the involved parties. Do you think that you own Wikipedia?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

List of hentai authors


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

The majority of the content was deleted under claims of unsourced entries.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)



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

Discussed the issue in the article's discussion board and with the user on my talk section.


 * How do you think we can help?

Establish if the deleted entries are sourced or otherwise.

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Well, it looks like what TheFarix has done here is removed all the entries that are redlinks, not all the entries that are unsourced. If he had removed all the unsourced entries then there would be no list left, as there is not a single source for the whole article. What TheFarix has done is actually fairly lenient - we have strict standards for any mentions of living people on Wikipedia, as you can see if you read the page Biographies of living persons. Being accused of being a hentai author when you are not one could be very damaging for some people, so it's important for Wikipedia's reputation that we minimise the risk of this happening. The biographies of living persons policy that I linked to above says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". There is only one realistic way to solve this dispute in my opinion, and that is to cite every entry in the list so that they follow Wikipedia policies. If not, then I think we should reduce the size of the list even further. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 02:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, in Japan there's no stigma associated with doing hentai work. Many mangaka switch between these works such as Oh Great! who did Silky Whip (hentai) and non-hentai work like Air Gear Tenjho Tenge or Masami Obari who worked on the Fatal Fury films and many other projects only to do Angel Blade and Marine A Go Go. Perhaps the most famous mangaka that went between both mediums is Satoshi Urushihara who did stuff like Legend of Lemnear and Plastic Little and then did some hardcore hentai like Front Innocent. I think it's important that when writing articles, especially about other cultures, we don't apply our society's prejudices. Regarding the "unsourced" entries, even as Wikipedia expands, we keep in mind there is so much material not yet repesented on the site and if we stifle projects because they make mention of entries that, while notable, are not yet available on Wikipedia because it's such a massive market it will take years for Wikipedia to catch up it will hold the overall project back. Further, the authors listed all had works listed and all had material published in America by major publishers for manga and comics (such as Eros, Icarus, CPM, and ComicsOne). My last comment is that if we begin gutting lists like this article has been, it sets a precedent to eliminate the overall majority of list-type articles. In fact, I doubt there is a list I've seen that didn't include entries not yet represented on Wikipedia (do in part to obscurity but also because Wikipedia still isn't large enough to include emerging mediums, like manga/anime in America, or those that are not exactly mainstream, such as American comics). Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a lot less stigma attached to it in Japan compared to Western countries, and of course you are right that we shouldn't use Western prejudices and that the list should be comprehensive. I'm afraid what it comes down to, though, is that Wikipedia has clear policies saying that we can't include unsourced material, both in the policy about living people I linked to above, and also a more general one at Verifiability. You make excellent arguments, but I'm afraid that they cannot trump these policies. If you are really intent on writing a comprehensive list but do not want to include sources, then other websites do exist where this is perfectly possible. Arguing against Wikipedia policies, however, isn't going to get you very far. I think, though, that it can't be that hard to find sources for notable hentai authors, and if you can find a good quality source you may be able to use it to cite many of the entries on the list. Have you considered looking for this kind of source? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the point is not to list only entries with Wikipedia articles, but to verify each entry with an inline citation in the article itself. Have a look at Citing sources for how to do this. If you are short on time, there is also a simplified guide available. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be more than willing to do this. However, my fear is that the editor I'm in conflict with that deleted the content would undo my edits before I could get to work on sourcing everything. When I went to undo his edits and start a discussion on the topic, he reverted the edits and then went to the discussion to say he's in the right and end of story. I chose this venue because I believe it will be more productive than arguing. What you suggest makes sense to me. I would like to undo Farix's edits and then I can spend a few hours sourcing the material. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's probably best to just put things back in as you source them, to save any arguments or accusations of edit warring. It's not as if your additions are going to disappear from the page history, so you can just refer to that version while you are editing. Also, another good way to save argument later on is to decide inclusion criteria for the list. You seem to want a comprehensive list, whereas TheFarix has removed some authors that have made hentai but are chiefly notable for other things. Deciding exactly what qualifies an author to be included in the list could save you both a lot of confusion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you given any more thought to sourcing the list? Let me know if you have any more questions or if any more problems come up. If everything's alright then I'll close this thread under the assumption that my advice will be sufficient to clear the situation up. Regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

List of hentai authors resolution
Activity has died down at the page, and the submitter seems satisfied with the need to source entries on the list. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 23:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)