Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 68

Music of_Argentina#Electronic
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Binksternet continues to aggressively police my edits on the Electronic section of the Music of Argetina. While I did not, in fact initially cite sources, which, along with accusing me of adding "promotional" material to the section, was Binksternet's original reason for removing my edits, I have since added sources for the edit. Binksternet then changed my edit again even after I added a source.

This user seems to think that his/her status as "Senior Editor II" allows them to remove good faith, properly sourced edits to this page simpley because they don't know about or agree with the information being added. S/he also displayed a bias and ignorance of the subject at hand - namely ZZK records - by  sarcastically referring to my update with quotation marks and labeling the group a "non-notable group of people". See below for Binksternet's exact quote:

"Your 'update' involved the promotion of a non-notable group of people and ZZK Records; a label that does not have a Wikipedia article."

This user's actions have become abusive and I would like to report them for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I cited a source for my edit, as Binksternet requested, and they then proceeded to remove my edits again. Twice.

How do you think we can help?

Please protect the page from further edits by Binksternet and issue them a warning to stop abusing their position as a Senior Editor III. Binkersnet has been removing my edits based off a demonstrated bias against the subject at hand (ZZK Records)and myself ,a new user not entirely familiar with all the editing protocols on Wikipedia. This is exactly the type of behavior that Wikipedia discourages: senior users intimidating new ones with excessive policing and reprimands for good faith edits.

Opening comments by Binksternet
John Henry Dale is a new editor here, establishing a user account just one day ago. Thus, I assume John is unfamiliar with various Wikipedia guidelines and policies. John appears to be interested in promoting himself as a DJ, music producer, IT engineer and more, with the addition of this text to his user page. As well, John appears to be promoting ZZK Records, the Zizek Club in Buenos Aires, and the people involved in the club. John added "Zizek Club" to the Music of Argentina page four times within 24 hours.
 * Added "Zizek Club", 21:43, March 28, 2013
 * Re-added "Zizek Club", 00:15, March 29, 2013
 * Re-added "Zizek Club", 17:07, March 29, 2013
 * Re-added "Zizek Club", 18:32, March 29, 2013

This behavior approaches the brightline rule of WP:3RR, prohibiting more than three reversions in 24 hours. I warned him two minutes after his most recent reversion.

Because of user page promotion and the ZZK/Zizek promotion, I have to assume that this editor is not here to help maintain a neutral point of view in music articles. Rather, I think the user is here as a promoter. The most recent change to the Music of Argentina article is indicative of what this editor wishes to do at Wikipedia: Extremely famous people such as Gustavo Cerati and Hernán Cattáneo get a very brief mention, but ZZK Records, Zizek Club, and three little-known individuals get described in detail. The weight and balance of the paragraph is completely thrown off here, slanted away from famous people and toward lesser knowns.

My advice for John is to write an article about ZZK Records or the Zizek Club within which the mention of the three club leaders would be properly weighted and balanced. Don't try to change the Music of Argentina article to promote lesser artists above very famous ones. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Music of_Argentina#Electronic discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Wetback
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User User:Seb_az86556 has been reverting my edits on Wetback. I already had a Talk page open on this, asking people not to revert these edits without explanation, because a prior (new) user had been reverting these edits without explanation; Seb was also reverting these edits without proper discussion, and without first discussing on the Talk page.

I proceeded to put an edit war warning on his Talk page; he did the same for me, then put up a message telling me I was abusing warnings. Then he finally posted on the Talk page, but only posted links to Wikipedia policies, without explaining at all how they apply to the current page or why the entire section must be deleted as a result of them.

Edited to add: He has also repeatedly removed my comments on his Talk page, rather than discussing, and then posted additional warnings on my Talk page. This is inappropriate, as far as I'm aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbystripes (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited to add: User is now threatening me. He reverted notice of dispute resolution from his Talk page, with the reason "I remove whatever I want". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbystripes (talk • contribs) 21:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Well, I opened a talk page. I also tried warning him. He seems to obviously think he's in the right here, and he's not discussing things on Talk like he's supposed to.

How do you think we can help?

Get him to stop reverting my contributions and discuss the reasons for any changes, and to stop giving me false warnings.

Opening comments by Seb_az86556
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Wetback discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

John D._Haynes_House
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Wiki user Nyttend is harassing me and posting personal information (my home street address). I and the homeowner of the John D. Haynes House and can confirm this via email at Richard@HaynesHouse.org. I had worked with Wiki in the past to identify myself as the homeowner. Nyttend keeps posting my personal information event though myself and Wiki authorities have honored my requests. When I placed the house on NRHP I made is “address restricted.” My house has been vandalized from this and I also have people knocking on my door saying they got my home address from Wiki. Posting of personal information is against Wiki’s policies. Please stop Nyttend from vandalism and harassing me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have worked with Wiki authorities in past. They put in a message saying “please do not post home street address.” Nyttend fails to honor.

How do you think we can help?

At this point I politely ask Nyttend be permanently banned from Wiki. I and Wiki authorities have been very patient and have given Nyttend several chances to stop breaking Wiki policy. This has been going on for years now. I have also gone to the police about this as well. Why is posting my home street address so important to this person. Have them post their own personally identifiable information - not mine.

Opening comments by Nyttend
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

John D._Haynes_House discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Search Stilts - go to tallest and Heaviest Stilts
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The Person you have recorded for Tallest and Heaviest Stilts is not verified by anyone but himself. Please go to the following three Record verification sites to see that under strict adjudication that I official hold the record for tallest and Heaviest Stilts:  www.alternativerecords.co.uk  on this site go to "Biggest & Tallest then go to "Biggest" then look up Tallest and Heaviest Stilts                                  www.guinnessworldrecord.com/records-1/heaviest-stilts-walked-with www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk search Doug Hunt

The person you have did not walk the required 25 forward steps or have any official supervise. My stilt records met required criteria and have been recorded on web sites and books by out side adjudicators! Please contact any of the above record international record keepers for verification.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

null

How do you think we can help?

do not take my word for it - please contact the three international record keepers for official results. The person you now have listed somehow was able to get in your web site with now verifications! He claims ever record I officially have and other official record holders. It took me years to properly accomplish my records and in each case we brought funds in for charity. He accomplished what he cliams on first trys! Plus he used supports and over head support line.

Opening comments by null
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Search Stilts - go to tallest and Heaviest Stilts discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

For the past couple of weeks a user has disputed what type of systems Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro are. Despite extensive discussions on the talk pages of both, full blown edit wars has erupted between parties involved on one person versus consensus of others.

The Tyne and Wear Metro is a railway system connecting Newcastle, Gateshead, Sunderland and surrounding areas in north-east England. On this general it is disputed whether it is a light-rail metro (or rapid transit) system or a large commuter rail network.

Merseyrail is a unique system in that is a largely self-contained system that serves the Merseyside and Wirral areas of England. This especially includes Liverpool and Birkenhead. Because of underground central sections with highly frequent services, the user(s) dispute that it is a rapid-transit system despite general consensus that it is a commuter system, part of the National Rail network and run also as a train operating company.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions with the editors have been done at both talk pages. Other opinions have also been asked for from WT:UKRAIL.

How do you think we can help?

Could you help to bring in any outsiders' point of views or any help especially those familiar with the UK railway systems?

Opening comments by BigScribe
Firstly, this Alarics fellow is saying I am some waterspaces fellow as is this L1v3rp00l. They is WRONG! I

I came in to sort out a dispute by L1v3rp00l and other editors, and put some sanity into it. The problem is in the Merseyrail article. It is apparent that L1v3rp00l has an attitude problem here and should attempt to see some common sense. He doesn't appear that bright and lacking logic, from his ramblings. It is clear this L1v3rp00l who has an obsession with the train operating company to be the first words in an article about Merseyrail the network. This is ridiculous, the article is about Merseyrail the network not the operating company. The uninitiated person who looks at the article would become confused with acronyms like TOC's, etc, and all sorts of rail buff language. The uninitiated person wants to know about Merseyrail the network, not pedantics about who runs the network. Wiki is for all people not just rail buffs. The opening was changed properly by me and more slicker and even mentions the train operating company to satisfy L1v3rp00l and further info is available from the the section. But this obsessed L1v3rp00l is not satisfied as an obsession has overtaken him and it is clearly a personal issue with him and other editors. He keeps changing the article despite being accommodated in the article in the opening para. The edit by me should be reinstated.

It is clear this L1v3rp00l works for Northern Rail as he keeps degrading Merseyrail, and is he is from Liverpool, or is he? Merseyrail is a rapid-transit network FOR SURE! It has 5 minute intervals in the centre, despite L1v3rp00l's ramblings. The trains run at 75 mpg not 50mph as in T&W. L1v3rp00l is very confused rambling on about the national network when most of Merseyrail is self contained electric. Not that this matters at all. To him and his train operating company obsession it does. In the article no one is saying the network is a full metro. It is metro in parts for sure, but not overall.

Opening comments by L1v3rp00l
My take is as follows: Merseyrail is not 'rapid transit' or a 'metro' because it is part of the wider National Rail network, uses standard British trains which are used elsewhere on other indisputably suburban networks. It is also not frequent enough (only 4 tph on each line, 2 tph on some) to qualify as a metro. Merseyrail is, fairly clearly, a suburban/commuter network.

Tyne & Wear is frequent enough and also segregated from the rest of the UK's railway network and because the tracks are not owned and maintained by Network Rail, this qualifies it as both a metro and a rapid transit system.

This seems like a good opportunity to express my concern that User:BigScribe and related I.P. addresses 94.194.21.227 and 188.223.113.142 are all sockpuppets of previously banned user User:Waterspaces. Exactly the same arrogant posting style, same desire to claim ownership of articles and same ignorance of the consensus. L1v3rp00l (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Alarics
In general I am inclined to agree with L1v3rp00l. The IP / BigScribe / Waterspaces is/are behaving unconstructively in my view.

Part of what has been at issue here is whether Merseyrail should be one article or two (the TOC vs. the larger physical network described as such on maps). I did point out a disadvantage of having two separate articles, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

As regards terminology, the distinctions between rapid transit / metro / underground / commuter rail / S-bahn etc. are not absolutely rigid, and Wikipedia is far from consistent about it across all articles. Merseyrail is arguably a hybrid system. I haven't looked at the Tyne and Wear article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Redrose64
My involvement at Talk:Tyne and Wear Metro is nil; my involvement at Tyne and Wear Metro is limited to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Tyne+and+Wear+Metro this prot], which I applied, and which I then.

My involvements at Merseyrail are larger (I did also protect that one at the same time as the above, for the same reason); and my involvement at Talk:Merseyrail still larger. On this last, I now find myself trying to sort out odd unsigned random comments and apply a valid signatures to these - and then the person whose sig I applied claims that it wasn't their comment. I started off trying to be neutral, but that is increasingly difficult now that unfounded accusations are being directed at me.

Related threads: User talk:Mjroots; User talk:Redrose64; User talk:Redrose64. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I must declare that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Redrose64&limit=2&offset=20130401200000&dir=prev unilaterally applied a full prot to both articles]. This is not to endorse any particular version, but it's clear to me that despite the existence of this DRN, notified parties continued to edit-war over the content of both articles (they have both been stable for about nine hours but I don't expect them to stay that way). This does not prevent any other admin lifting the prots without consulting me first. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by G-13114
I would like to second most of what User:L1v3rp00l said above.

I would also like to add that I added two references to the Tyne and Wear Metro article clearly defining it as a light rail/rapid transit system (See this diff).

IP 94.194.21.227 (who I assume must the same as User:BigScribe) then reverted it, adding a version with a reference which he claimed supported his view that it was a commuter rail system, but in fact made no reference at all to the Tyne and Wear Metro (See this diff). I pointed out the inadequacy of this reference on the article's talk page, but did not receive a reply which addressed the point. He merely asserted his views in an abusive tone, without offering any supporting evidence. There followed several back and forth reverts and the page was then semi-protected.

It then started again within the last few days. G-13114 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No he is not. BigScribeBigScribe (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It just had a look at the T&W Metro article. You are 100% wrong and the editor IP 94.194.21.227 is 100% RIGHT !. Merseyrail is a rapid-transit network and the second largest in the UK. The Glasgow Subway IS NOT larger than Merseyrail, being a rather a tiny network in comparison, you even have to duck in the tiny carriages. This is FACT. Editor IP 94.194.21.227 even gave credible references. This article should be changed to editor IP 94.194.21.227 insertion on the T&W Metro. Editor G-13114 is 100% wrong and ignoring hard facts. BigScribe (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 94.194.21.227
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Babydoll9799
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 188.222.174.87
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 188.223.224.79
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Lukeno94
I'm very unused to DRN, it's somewhere I've barely visited, and I don't think I've ever posted here. Anyway, my involvement has simply been to revert two edits by the latest IP of this user to the version established by a consensus, at Tyne and Wear Metro, as well as one from the original reversion. - my original reversion, to the consensus established by everyone involved apart from the IP. - my first reversion of the current IP, citing the POV-pushing that this user appears to be engaging in. My reversion was then reverted as vandalism (which is bogus):. I then reverted for a second time, this time citing that consensus was against them (and making a bad remark about IP hopping, which I apologize for):. The remark was provoked by this comment about me deluding myself:. This is a common theme of attack by this editor. I am a member of the concerned WikiProject, and oversaw the discussions, both at talk page level, and WikiProject talk page level. I hope this comment isn't too long! Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 19:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor 94.194.21.227 corrected an inaccuracy. He gave TWO references to prove the point yet you and others on T&W M revert an obvious fact to portray a lie. 94.194.21.227's edit should be reinstated as overt deliberate lies cannot be tolerated on Wiki.

BigScribe (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
 * The IP editor is now continuing to make their POV-pushing edit, abusing me and my talk page in the process. They made a change with a reference that made no mention of the T&WM: . I've requested temporary semi-protection of the article for the duration of this DRN. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the T&W M article was stating that the Glasgow Subway was larger than Merseyrail and that there was only three rapid-transit networks in the UK when there are FOUR and Merseyrail is number two ! T&W needs no mentioning to confirm these simple points. I read the references and they clearly reinforce the point that Merseyrail is number two in rapid-transit networks in the UK and there ARE four networks. The editor's insertion correcting on the obvious inaccuracy in the T&W M should be re-instated. Wiki cannot tolerate overt inaccuracies.BigScribe (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm Carrie. I'm a volunteer here at DRN; this doesn't mean I have any special powers or authority, but I can act as a mediator and try to help you reach a consensus.
 * I'm not starting discussion about the content dispute yet - we need to wait for everyone to post their opening comments. But it looks as though this is at least partly a conduct dispute. We can't help you with conduct issues here, but you can take them to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or, if the situation merits it, Requests for comment/User conduct. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry it should be taken to Sockpuppet investigations. CarrieVS (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've opened an SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Waterspaces. Hopefully it's not wrong to put it here! Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I wish to have the above article deleted or at least my contribution deleted. The article has been sabotaged by foreign editors - Binksternet and Slp1

For example, the amendments refer to percentages of the vote of the Party at national elections. The Party only contests a small number of seats. However Slp1 has used the raw number of voters divided by the total number of voters. This gives a very low percentage. Most of the voters did not have the opportunity to vote for the Party. This is a mis-use of data.

The article has been edited in a way that shows a lack of understanding of the political situation in Australia.

Furthermore I do not appreciate being implied that I would act unethically and either set up a dummy WP account or have another user edit for me.

Comment by Slp1 was as follows"-

"One more piece of advice, if I may, based on past experience. Sometimes when things like this happen there is a temptation to make a new WP account or to recruit a real-life friend to edit instead. The problem with this strategy is that when it is very, very obvious to other editors what is going on, and just leads to even more trouble for everybody!!! Slp1 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)"

This was the "last straw". I had never done this or even thought about it. My actions have always been above board.

When the details are deleted, I will disassociate myself from Wikipedia entirely.

Thank you.

John Flanagan

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made comments which have been ignored.

How do you think we can help?

I do not think that the dispute can be resolved.

Opening comments by Binksternet and Slp1
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting) discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Earth's Own Food Company
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User $ensible continues to undo edits regarding the ownership of this company by the Seventh Day Adventist church.

See Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company for precedent in stating the ownership of such companies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to start discussion on TALK page - no response. User appears to only exist to undo edits on this one article.

How do you think we can help?

Contact user $ensible directly, protect article.

Opening comments by $ensible
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Earth's Own Food Company discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Tomaso Albinoni, Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An addition of a source qualifying a contentious claim about a musical piece is being rejected (repeat consecutive reversions, six times now by one editor, include a violation of the three revert rule, four reverts in 24 hours!), and the person doing these reversions (Galassi) refuses to explain his rationale on the talk pages, despite repeated requests, including on the editor's own talk pages (Galassi). There is a general discussion at the end of this talk page (in the last section "Did the Albinoni fragments exist after all?", on Nicola Schneider's thesis), but the reverting editor won't discuss it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor Response to recent statement by Galassi: This is a VERIFIABLE source--available from the university, and theses are publications. The point is that these objections are disputed and require a full discussion.In my view Galassi has not yet entered a fair discussion with the other editors on the talk page. (No sock puppetry: I am NOT schneid9 or any named user there but am not at home so my ips vary, sorry). Allegations of bad faith are without merit--this is a real substantive dispute which would benefit from a level-headed and respectful discussion among the editors. This is not original research, but a verifiable scholar's discovery of new relevant evidence. There is no consensus on hoax, only that the piece was composed by Giazotto.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for discussion on edit summaries, asked for discussion on reverting editor's talk page, and there is extensive discussion on the talk page below at end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor Note the talk page above is for the musical piece, but the edit warring is going on with the composer's page (Albinoni): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomaso_Albinoni (That is explained on the talk page for Albinoni, where discussion of this particular issue is referred to the Adagio's talk section.)

How do you think we can help?

Would at least prefer to have reverting editor discuss on talk page, before reverting what are legitimate edits (adding a different point of view from a published work by a classical scholar discovering new primary material). To me it seems to be a clear example of wanting to squelch legitimate dissenting evidence on a disputed subject. In my view, citing a string of Wikipedia tags does not constitute discussion; and one should try to fairly address the concern of the other editors, who have given a lot of thought to this and provided documentation for correcting an imbalance in the presentation.

Opening comments by Galassi
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The editor Schneid9 and several IPs/proxies (and potential sockpuppets) are promoting an unpublished master thesis by one Nicola Schneider, probably the same person. The book fails WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, and goes against general scholarly consensus regarding the subject of the article (WP:FRINGE). --Galassi (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Tomaso Albinoni, Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
 * Hi all, welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm a volunteer here, and I am going to try and resolve this dispute. Edit warring is never a solution to a dispute, so let's work on trying to fix things. I read over the article linked above, where I see this content at present:

The famous "Albinoni Adagio in G minor" for violin, strings and organ, the subject of many modern recordings, is now thought to be a musical hoax composed by Remo Giazotto, although the recent discovery by musicologist Muska Mangano, Giazotto's last assistant, of a modern but independent manuscript transcription of the figured bass portion and six fragmentary bars of the first violin, "bearing in the top right-hand corner a stamp stating unequivocally the Dresden provenance of the original from which it was taken," provides some support for Giazotto's account that Albinoni was his source.[5] I also had a look at the article Adagio in G minor, where sourcing on the origins of the work is also quite thin. To me, I can't see enough sourcing for either possibility. Could the participants please provide me some more information here, and any relevant sources that provide more detail, one way or another? Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you Steven Zhang--note that I am the same user as originally posted this request for mediation (I'm waiting on receiving a password for my username, MnlCls, from Wikipedia). I agree the sourcing for both sides is thin, and will post something on that once I get a username password later today. In the meantime, have you already looked at the talk section of Adagio? Link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adagio_in_G_minor#Did_the_Albinoni_fragments_exist_after_all.3F Specifically check the comment by @schneid9 (--btw, for the record, I don't know and have no connection to this editor whatsoever, apparently a Michael Schneider, since it has come up in the dispute; I also have no connection whatsoever to Nicola Schneider, since that has also been alleged!). The subsection with the text "(1) Giazotto never claimed that the Adagio was all Albinonian" has some links that may be of use to you. (--I will post something in the talk section there to see if there is common ground once I can login with a username, to avoid confusion.) I don't want anything that is not a fair statement based only on reliable sources, and hope there will be consensus once it gets a full discussion on the talk page from all parties concerned. I am still reading up on Wikipedia policies, but I think we do NOT have a problem with WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, or WP:OR here for the Mangano fragment evidence in Nicola Schneider's work (which I have explained earlier and can respond to at length if needed), assuming things are presented with care and accuracy and the right weight (we are not there yet by any means, but I hope we will get there). I am more worried about violations of WP:NPOV in a case where passions seem to be running so strong. Thank you again for your assistance. 74.94.170.253 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)(Same as original poster.)


 * Yes, MnlCls, these "strong passions" are probably the real thing at stake. In spite of what Galassi is insinuating, it wasn't me who first inserted the Mangano/Schneider discovery into the Adagio article (let alone the Albinoni article), but I only put it to discussion on the Adagio talk page. When somebody else added the information to the articles, Galassi kept deleting it but refused to elaborate on his reasons. It was this stubbornness that made me enter the dispute in the first place (and then of course his wild allegations about my identity). Galassi's talk page and list of contributions reveal that he has an impressive record as an edit warrior, so discussing the problem here with a neutral third party is probably the only way to solve it. -- Schneid9 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Read on WP:NPA. My personal qualities are irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is Nicola Schneider opinion is not seconded by any other scholar, and as such it remains WP:UNDUE. Googling Nicola Schneider yields nothing scholarly notable.--Galassi (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is Mnlcls again.  This is characteristic of the problem: you give tags like WP:undue but when others disagree with your assessment you don't enter into discussion but just revert repeatedly (WP:3RR etc).  As for WP:NPA the issue is your edit warring conduct and insults to other editors. I have no reason to think some of your edits are not excellent, but why not discuss it so we get an agreed text.  WP:undue, which refers to flat earth example, hardly applies because this is not in contradiction to the consensus view: giazotto composed it we all agree, we all agree he claimed some fragment for a source, and we are debating how to add a reliable source that has provided new evidence that the fragment may have existed, and not been fabricated.  Your input is valued but you never give it except as a series of WP tags and revert actions--can't you see this is intensely irritating conduct?74.94.170.253 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)(Mnlcls, please note using public/shared ips until wiki account password received).


 * @Galassi: Albinoni's Adagio isn't exactly the number one topic of musicology, so it is no wonder that nobody seems to have mentioned Schneider's findings yet, especially since there have been no publications at all on Albinoni for years. And how many Google hits does it require for a musicologist to be "scholarly notable"? Schneider is still relatively young, and his doctoral dissertation (summa cum laude) remains to be published. I really cannot see any reasonable ground why you won't allow anything into the article that might even modestly suggest that there might have been some source for the Adagio (the fact that you constantly come up with new "reasons" – WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE etc. – arises the suspicion that it's mainly an emotional thing). And as to WP:NPA, it was you who started to get personal by insinuating that I was Nicola Schneider and repeating this insinuation even ten months after I had denied it, thus implying that I was a liar. -- Schneid9 (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then Schneider could be considered a Reliable Source when and if his opinion gets noticed. For the time being it remains an opinion by one Nicola Schneider, an individual without credentials.--Galassi (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you describe a person with a doctorate in the relevant field of expertise from a respected university as "without credentials"? I don't think you are responding adequately to the positions of others: Nicola S. is not contradicting the consensus: there had been no documentary evidence of a fragment, and now a verifiable credentialed source has evidence of such a fragment.  In the face of accusations of a hoax, it seems this should get some mention.  This is hardly the same as citing a nutty "flat earther".  Also you have to keep in mind the context: this subject is somewhat obscure to begin with.   At any rate, it would be good to discuss these points and see if we get an agreement; it comes across to me as peremptory mandates with no discussion when you revert without listening to what other editors think.MnlCls (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Galassi: First, we're not talking about "opinions", but about a document that was discovered and published by a musicologist. Second, where is the rule that requires sources to be "noticed" (i.e. quoted?) before being suitable for Wikipedia? (BTW, please don't remove spaces from my signatures.) -- Schneid9 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I, like my colleague Steven Zhang, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The Nicola Schneider thesis, if it is a master's thesis as described on the article talk page, cannot be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia without proof that it has had significant scholarly influence. The relevant rule can be found in the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section of the Identifying reliable sources guideline:"'Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.'"(Emphasis added.) To show significant scholarly influence, it would be necessary to show that it has been relied upon or seriously discussed in multiple scholarly sources which are themselves reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @TransporterMan, Thank you very much for pointing that out.  I'll see if it appears in his dissertation or in other sources, else remove that reference.  We still have an issue about the hoax language to resolve but that was not the major dispute. MnlCls (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if Galassi had cited this precise rule from the beginning instead of just throwing abbreviations around, we could have spared ourselves a lot of words! Regrettable as it is, we won't probably change Wikipedia's iron rules, but I hope the information will at least be preserved on the talk page. As to Nicola Schneider's forthcoming doctoral dissertation, it deals with the war losses of the music collections of German libraries, so it is quite possible that the Adagio will be mentioned. I'll also watch out for it. -- Schneid9 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a good find, a number of people are grateful for your posting on the talk page, and I hope it makes it into his dissertation.  As far as the unpleasant aspects of the dispute, one still gets to reflect on the pitfalls of the human condition, which there is no escape from.MnlCls (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@Schneid9: You have to remember that those of us who work in dispute resolution have to have a fairly — ahem — encyclopedic working knowledge of the various rules. Folks who are more concerned with content editing frequently have the effect of the rules well in mind on an everyday basis, but can't necessarily point to them or recite them verbatim with ease. Heck, for that matter when I saw what you were struggling over I immediately knew what the rule was but it took several minutes of uncertain searching to actually find it so I could cite it to you, and I'm a policy geek. @Everyone: I think that the current dispute is resolved. If no one objects within the next 24 hours or so, we'll close this listing. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC) @TransporterMan, Thank you for your help and no objections from me (the original poster) to closing it. (Though I agree with you as a general matter, I would add that this specific case was not only about finding the relevant rule; it would have been resolved in a much friendlier way except for some issues involving the reverting editor already noted. But hopefully things will go more smoothly now.)MnlCls (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An IP user is constantly adding arbitrary content that violates Wikipedia's core policies of notability, verifiability and no original research. The content was challenged and removed, only to be added back by the user, without any clear reasoning. Subsequently, an edit war began, with the user showing no clear motive to reach a resolution. Also, the user wrongly infers that my actions are biased, which I have expressed are not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to discuss the matter in a civil manner on the user's talk page, with no avail. I've provided adequate reasoning and logic on my behalf. However, the user has refused to actively participate in the discussion, ignoring my attempts and going so far as to removing my comments on his own talk page, which I was forced to revert.

How do you think we can help?

Reach a consensus that does not go against Wikipedia's policies.

Opening comments by 98.197.228.122
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 20th Century Fox discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Attack (political party), Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An unregistered user with shifting IP adresses repeatedly deletes content from articles on Bulgarian political parties, especially regarding the description of their ideologies, that is backed by cited sources. He/she replaces it with information without citing sources and without explaining in the edit summary or on the talk page, why he/she contests the sourced statements or why he/she disagrees with their presentation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to contact the user directly, because his/her IP adress changes every time he/she edits Wikipedia. So, messages on the IP user's talkpage won't reach him/her. My attempt to start a discussion on Talk:Attack (political party) has not been answered by my "opponent". Probably, he/she is not aware of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and not familiar with our customs.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Opened a thread at Talk:Attack (political party)

How do you think we can help?

To be honest, I don't have an idea how to start communication and find a compromise with an unregistered user who cannot be contacted directly and does not use edit summaries or talk pages to reason his edits. I would have semi-blocked the pages, because the unregistered user's edits and reverts seemed rather unconstructive and disruptive to me, but the admin at WP:RPP didn't agree and instead suggested dispute resolution. Hopefully, you are more experienced and/or have better ideas than I do.

Opening comments by RJFF
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:71BA:5D17:9185:6DA
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Attack (political party), Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Eve McVeagh Publicity Photo from Snafu (1945)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have explained to Stefan2 that this photo had no copyright, no author. This was typical for publicity photos of the 1940s in the United States. I purchased the photo on eBay. There are no copyright markings on the picture front or back. Upon research I found the publicity photo was taken for the Biltmore Theatre on Broadway (now the Samuel J Friedman Theatre). I gave him the address to contact them. He refused to contact the theatre saying there is no guarantee a person would be there to help him. He said the photo needed to be scanned on the back (I understand that Wiki procedure). However, the photo is brittle and framed and I do not wish to scan it again in case of damage. Further, I wish to present this photograph at an Eve McVeagh exhibit and keep it in good condition for myself and possibly other collectors. I also found that a copy of the scanned photo was on the http://kirkdouglaslives.com/ website under "ladies of kirk douglas films" of the 1960s (although the picture is over 20 years older than the movie "The Way West" from 1968. I asked him to contact the webmaster who might have more information regarding the copyright status. The photo is now a candidate for deletion under "possibly unfree files."  Yet its use seems to imply it is free.  Laws in Sweden (where he resides) and other countries differ from the United States.  I think this passes the threshold as no copyright and free public domain in the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Stefan's argument was that the source information did not prove there was no copyright. I explained that Theatre companies or Studios often did not credit authors of publicity photos. The original source was listed as eBay item. I researched and found that this photo was taken for the Biltmore Theatre on Broadway, NYC, NY (now the Samuel Friedman Theatre). It has no copyright markings. A scanned copy of the picture is on http://kirkdouglaslives.com/ "ladies of kirk douglas films" section

How do you think we can help?

Please explain to Stefan2 that this photo passes the threshold for free no copyright public domain in the United States. Please contact the Samuel J Friedman Theatre (formerly Biltmore Theatre) or kirk douglas lives to verify this status Samuel J Friedman Theatre: 261 West 47th Street. City, New York City or the webmaster at http://kirkdouglaslives.com/

Opening comments by Stefan2
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Eve McVeagh Publicity Photo from Snafu (1945) discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Pope Francis#Relation to Jewish community in Argentina
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * aka Geewhiz
 * aka Geewhiz

Here is the quote that is in question: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." Essentially, one user (and only one user), Herzen is making the claim that: The Jerusalem Post is not an appropriate source because Israel is an "apartheid state" Using a quote about the Holocaust that mentions Pope Francis and Pope John Paul II implies that Pope Benedict XVI (because he is NOT mentioned) is a Nazi(!) Mentioning the word "Holocaust" is automatically contentious, especially in the minds of "Muslims and Arabs" Because of the alleged "contentiousness" of this quote, it violates BLP and can be deleted regardless of the discussion on the talk page (where, by the way, no other editor who has weighed in has agreed that the Jerusalem Post should be ruled out as a source, or that there is any contentiousness in the quote either because the Holocaust is mentioned or Benedict XVI is not mentioned). I find the claims against this quote to be inappropriate in and of themselves...and unreasonable. If the quote is deleted again, I will not revert because it is already to the point of an edit war and I have never been in an edit war...so I would appreciate help from this page instead.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have opened a discussion on the article talk page and also on Herzen's talk page. It is clear to me that this dispute cannot be resolved without help.

How do you think we can help?

First, an opinion as to whether the quote itself automatically violates BLP rules, and so can be deleted regardless of talk page discussion. Second, whether there really is a "hidden" attack on anyone, calling that person (Benedict XVI) a Nazi. Thirdly, whether the quote should be allowed to stay or not based on a consensus on the talk page -- or whether it is "contentious" regardless of the opinion of other editors and should be disallowed.

Opening comments by Herzen
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. NearTheZoo misrepresents above what I have said. My point is that the editorial implicitly makes a snipe at Benedict by mentioning Francis and John Paul but not Benedict when it comes to relations with Jews. The implicit point is that Benedict is not as good a friend of the Jews as he should be. On the article's Talk page, DeCausa agrees that "the newspaper is making a somewhat sly point", but NearTheZoo refuses to recognize the presence of any innuendo.

I believe that because the editorial insinuates something bad about Benedict, it violates WP:BLP. Abductive agrees that the editorial quote is problematic: he deleted the quote twice, after I had conceded on the Talk page that there was consensus to keep the quote. (Before Abductive's intervention, I was not aware of WP:BLP's stipulation that contentious statements about living persons must be immediately removed.) On his Talk page, Abductive wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed." So, I am not the only one to have found the quote problematic.

Although DeCausa recognizes the putdown of Benedict, he does not think that the sly, implicit putdown is grounds for deleting the quote. This is what the matter turns around. Should an article about the present pope include a snide putdown of the previous (living) pope, even though the quote in question "says nothing that is not already in the article" (to quote Abductive again)?

The point about Israel being considered to be an apartheid state (by Israelis themselves) concerns WP:WORLDVIEW. The point was that the quote is inflammatory, since Arabs and Muslims might find it hypocritical that the editorial writer expresses concern about Catholics being able to interact with Jews, given that the Israeli government goes out of its way to make it difficult for Israelis and Palestinians to interact with each other. But I have dropped this issue. – Herzen (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gilabrand
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Bmclaughlin9
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Upper lima 65
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Abductive

 * My take on this is that the text in question is really not necessary. It is a vague opinion from an editorial page which duplicates information in a previous sentence. Also, I have a thing against quotes. From an encyclopedic standpoint, dragging in mention of a previous pope's experience is poor form. The article is going to be long enough without such excursions. It would be better for editors to find specific examples of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interactions with the Jewish community, even if it means waiting for sources to be translated from Spanish. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by DeCausa
I only posted once on this on the article talk page and don't have strong views on it. But since TransporterMan kindly posted an invite on my talk page to participate and added an "Opening comments by DeCausa" heading, I will comment here. IMHO, it's a valid enough quote and Herzen's arguments against seem tenuous in the extreme. The Israeli/apartheid argument is, I would have thought, a dead duck. Does it mean we are to remove quotes across WP from Israeli newspapers in this area for fear of inflaming Muslims? Quite apart from WP:NOTCENSORED, I'm sure the very small minority of Muslims who are susceptible to being so "inflamed" have bigger fish to fry than this particular article. On Benedict, I thought the Jerusalem Post might have been making a sly dig at Benedict since he would have had contact with Jews in his youth in the same way as JP II had. NearTheZoo thinks not, because of specific facts about JP II being involved with a Jewish theatre group in his youth. He may be right, I don't know. In any case, even if the Jerusalem Post is having a dig at Benedict, so what? The quote is there to evidence what the Jewish world thinks of him in relation to other popes. It's a quote (not WP speaking); it's stated that it's an editorial; the Jerusalem Post is a notable English-language expression of Jewish opinion; you have to work very hard to take some real BLP inference from it. Frankly, I can't see what all the fuss is about. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pope Francis#Relation to Jewish community in Argentina discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. I am not opening or "taking" this case at the present time, but I wanted to note that I have expanded the participant list to include everyone who recently participated in the discussion at the article talk page and have notified all of the additional editors on their respective talk pages. Best regards, TransporterMan  (TALK ) 17:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Roman reconstructionist pagan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

TParis, a Christian, has removed every single external link to pagan resources relating to Roman reconstructionist paganism. People who look up this page are naturally going to be interested in finding other websites on this topic and the only link he has left in is an internal link to Nova Roma - which is not the only website on this topic. It is very important, for the people who are interested in practicing contemporary Roman polytheism, that this page include a variety of relevant links to good external websites on this topic. I think it is fine for Christians to edit pagan pages where they are able to be impartial - but when they start stripping out all external links I think the question has to be asked: is this a move to prevent access to information on paganism?

Probably the best websites on the Religio Romana are: - https://sites.google.com/site/cultusdeorumromanorum/ - http://novaroma.org/nr/Cultus_deorum_Romanorum The best Religio Romana blogs, imo, are: - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/ - http://romanpagan.blogspot.com/ - http://lases.blogspot.it/ - http://romanpolytheist.wordpress.com/ -http://goldentrail.wordpress.com Excellent free online translations of ancient Roman literature are available at: - http://www.naderlibrary.com/ (scroll down to classics) - http://poetryintranslation.com/index.html#Latin: - http://sacred-texts.com/cla/index.htm (scroll down to Roman)

I would like add these references under "external links" but I am concerned that TParis will just strip them - as he has clearly indicated to me that he will do. I know he will delete any changes I make to this page and probably block me as well. I can imagine the power he has in this respect gives him a little thrill.

He is claiming neutrality but what he is really doing is stripping the life out of the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have communicated with him twice - his response has been to threaten to block me as a Wikipedia editor (for supposedly being a spammer - which is rot, I basically rewrote the page concerned and all the references supplied come via me). Which is ironic because it is he who is trying to stifle the flow of information not me.

How do you think we can help?

1. Tell him to stop removing links to pagan websites on pages about paganism. 2. Tell him to stop threatening me (eg, to block my editing account) so that I can insert the links mentioned above, under external links on that page so that pagans can easily locate materials relevant to their religion on Wikipedia. It is very important, for the people who are interested practicing contemporary Roman polytheism, that this page include a variety of relevant links to external websites on this topic.

Opening comments by TParis
Interesting personal attack to start out with. Also called, in latin of course, an ad hominem attack. The facts of the matter have nothing to do with my faith. The links above were used originally as reliable sources which falls foul of WP:IRS. Specifically, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." As external links, which this user has also spammed on Galli, Mercury (mythology), Chlorpromazine, Lares and much more (and spammed another blog that I assume is his own on Bipolar I disorder), I also pointed him to WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" This case is simple and if the user continues to spam external links, I intend to seek a block on the administrator's noticeboard.--v/r - TP 02:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Roman reconstructionist pagan discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
 * Hello. I am Steven Zhang, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've looked over the article and I agree with the assessment made by TParis - blogs and self-made websites fall under being self-published sources, which are not reliable sources, nor are they generally suitable as external links. This seems to be the case here, so I would recommend that this dispute be closed as resolved, and if conduct issues occur then administrative intervention be pursued. Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 02:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is far from settled. These are valuable resources made by people who actually know something about the Roman religion, and it should not be removed from this article because some administrator is being a Christian bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Male Privilege
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I noticed this article has very poor sources, and what I see as biased and unsubstantiated content. Some of the references appeared to be vandalism (article mentioned female genital mutilation as an example of male privilege, yet the reference was a site on male genital mutilation aka circumcision). A large portion of the article appears to be a poorly written essay that was copy-pasted into wikipedia with inline (author, YYYY) citations intact. The article also spends a lot of time not covering male privilege, but instead covering alleged instances of it (no sources stating that each things is male privilege, just sources stating that the things mentioned exist, such as the wage gap). I also take issue with the POV-ness of the article, because women do enjoy quite a few privileges in many societies, and Female Privilege links back to this article. Basically, the whole thing is a mess.

User:UseTheCommandLine is repeatedly reverting my good-faith edits to remove unsourced, biased, or irrelevant material, and accusing me of edit warring. I've gone to the talk page to discuss why I removed the material in the article, yet my edits were still reverted. I then (without removing any content) went through and inline-tagged each part of the article that was POV, unsourced, dubious, or undue. That edit was again, reverted. My edit to add POV tag to the top of the page was reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to discuss with User:UseTheCommandLine on the talk page in vain. I saw that User:UseTheCommandLine was also recently involved in an edit war with other editors on White Privilege, and the article was locked for a week due to POV pushing. Due to this recent event, I asked if we needed to take this to DRN, to which User:UseTheCommandLine replied, yes.

How do you think we can help?

I would like User:UseTheCommandLine to justify her reasoning for completely reverting all of my edits, and I would like an impartial third party to read the talk page and the arguments here and help build consensus as to what, exactly Male Privilege should include, and whether it should be referred to as a given, or a hypothesis, and whether the article violates WP:UNDUE in covering only one side of a two-sided issue.

Opening comments by UseTheCommandLine
I reverted a large deletion and explained myself on the talk page even before making the reversion; I feel this is consistent with WP:BRD. I attempted to engage the other editor directly at that time.

I reverted another removal of what I interpreted as sourced content, and engaged the other editor on the talk page about it. Further, I made good faith efforts to help address some of what I was interpreting the other editor's concerns were, with subsequent changes in wording.

This editor immediately started leveling accusations of bias after their first deletion. I realize this is more of a behavioral issue, but I also feel like this makes it difficult to drill down into the specific criticisms of the other editor. I agree that because of the controversial nature of the subject, word choice must be deliberate, but at other controversial pages I have edited there has been an unfortunate tendency of some editors to try and insert too much mitigating language, which does a disservice to the reader. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (further, my mention of edit warring was related to statements of intent to re-revert without additional discussion, as here.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that there is now a posting at WP:ANI regarding this article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Male Privilege discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

White privilege
at the top and

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Back in October 2012, an edit war broke out at this page after some edits were made to the lead paragraph, inserting a bunch of mitigating language that was clearly intended to cast doubt on the idea the article is written about. at the time I filed a DRN case, calling them weasel words, but DRN did not really become involved. Several months of protracted discussion followed from multiple editors.

Recently, an ip editor removed some of the mitigating language that had again crept in. This removal was promptly reverted by an editor involved with the previous dispute, and re-reverted by me -- briefly, I thought the mitigating language violated WP:SPADE, WP:WEASEL, and perhaps WP:UNDUE, since substantial space is given to criticisms of the idea in the lead section. Then the editor who had instigated the edit war in October became involved. I attempted to open a talk page discussion about wording, but I am frankly unwilling to try and negotiate with this editor on my own. I have encountered this user's edits in other contexts and have had enough experience with their poor sourcing, POVPUSH, and other disruptive behavior that it is quite hard for me to WP:AGF.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion (current), extensive talk page discussion (October 2012)

How do you think we can help?

Additional eyes are needed. I am unwilling simply to argue with ; I genuinely wish to come to consensus, but my experience has been that without intervention or interest by other users things go in circles, and I do not have time for that. While seems much more amenable to genuine consensus-building, they still are clearly critical of the concept. Other editors involved with previous disputes have largely abandoned editing, AFAICT.

Opening comments by Apostle12
UsetheCommandLine asserts that the current content dispute dates from Oct, 2012 and involves mitigating language that recently "crept" into the article. In fact the so-called "mitigating language" (really just language acknowledging some degree of dispute) was a compromise proposed by Thucydides411 on Feb 14, 2013. UsetheCommandLine was actively involved on Feb 14, accepted Thudydides411's compromise and engaged in collaborative editing supporting the compromise.

On Jan 22, 2013 an unnamed editor had inserted mitigating language into the first sentence of the lede so that it read "White privilege refers to what some individuals perceive as advantages that white people enjoy in certain societies..."

On Feb 14 UsetheCommandLine eliminated the mitigating language, along with the word "controversial," which he called "weasily." In a clear attempt at compromise Thucydides411 added the words "are argued to," so that the sentence read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to enjoy in certain societies..." I made some unrelated minor edits that day, then UsetheCommandLine engaged in collaborative editing, leaving "are argued to" intact and changing the sentence to read "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies..." I was relieved that UsetheCommandLine had accepted Thucydides411's compromise and that the dispute had been resolved.

On March 2 an unnamed editor removed the "are argued to" compromise, and longtime editor MalikShabbaz reverted, insisting that the unnamed editor take the matter to Talk.

The compromise held until March 14, when an unnamed editor attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; Dawn Bard supported the compromise and reverted.

On March 25 Beloki once again attempted to strengthen the mitigating language; UsetheCommandLine supported the compromise by reverting and retaining the "are argued to" language.

On April 2 an unnamed editor attacked the compromise by removing the "are argued to" language, calling it "silly." Thucydides411 reverted, supporting the compromise he had originally authored and which up to that point had been supported by all other major editors including UsetheCommandline, Thucydides411, Malik Shabbaz, and myself. Suddenly UsetheCommandLine abandoned the compromise and reverted Thucydides411.

I viewed this as a clear violation of Bold/Revert/Discuss and changed the sentence back to the version incorporating the Thucydides411's original "are argued to" compromise. Both Thucydides411 and I appealed to UsetheCommandline on his Talk page, however he refused to discuss the matter and opened this extremely premature DRN.

I believe we are unlikely to find a better solution than the "are argued to" compromise. It does not fully satisfy those, like UsetheCommandLine, who will only be satisfied by full endorsement of the "White Privilege" concept; he wants the article to refer to "White privilege" as an uncontested fact. Nor does it fully satisfy the many other editors who believe the "White privilege" concept is unproven and is often overstated. I believe the first sentence should read something like, "White privilege refers to advantages that white people are argued to benefit from in certain societies." Fully satisfying no one and adequately satisfying everyone is what compromise is all about.

The real mystery is why UsetheCommandLine abandoned this compromise, which he himself supported. I can only conclude he is demonstrating, as he has so often before, an "all take, no give" attitude, refusing discussion and collaboration in favor of intransigence, wikilawyering and attempts to discourage editor involvement by insisting on time consuming RFC's and DRN's.

Opening comments by Thucydides411
The White Privilege article has many problems with neutrality. The most glaring problem, which I have been trying to address, is the lead, which was changed in November 2012 from a fairly objective overview to one which is highly partisan. Around this time, a number of other highly partisan additions were made to the article, particularly in the section on Australia, which violate the neutral and objective tone which Wikipedia is supposed to employ.

I have added a section to the article succinctly describing some of the objections to the idea of white privilege. On the talk page, I also provided a number of sources which disagree with the term and its use in historical research. The relevant discussion is here. None of these efforts have been able to move the discussion, which seems to be driven largely by ideological concerns. This is bad for Wikipedia: whatever we personally believe, we must be able to write neutrally.

White privilege discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's note: I initially closed this listing today for lack of talk page discussion based on the comments of the listing editor, but in fact in looking further into the matter there has been some recent talk page discussion and, indeed, the prior DRN listing was closed to send the matter back to the talk page without prejudice to refiling. I am not opening or "taking" this dispute and will leave it to other volunteers to decide whether or not they believe there has been sufficient recent talk page discussion. @UseTheCommandLine: Your opening statement makes it unclear whether you will or will not take part in any discussion which occurs here. Will you or will you not? — TransporterMan  (TALK ) 20:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I intend to take part in discussion here, which is why I removed my name from the list of DRN volunteers. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The talk page discussion of this matter is at Talk:White_privilege. It is a relatively small/short discussion ... only a couple of days; only a couple of editors.  Yesterday, April 5th, the article was protected for a week by admin Beeblebrox, in the hope of getting consensus, presumably on the talk page.  My recommendation would be: close this DRN case;  let the discussion happen on the talk page for a minimum of 7 days (until 12 april); and if it is stalled at  that time (after 12 april), then open a DRN case.  --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a reason for that. this discussion and to a lesser extent this one deal with what are substantively the same issues. The lead paragraph at that time made even less mention of criticism of the idea than the current one does. I noted in the filing that I did so in part due to my interactions, both on this page and others, with . I feel like if the same ideas, i.e. inserting additional mitigation language, are going to be revisited by the same editors, then I see is little reason not to pick up where the issue was left last time, which was at DRN. Doubly so, given that there are fewer editors at that page, I believe in large part because of the protracted, hostile environment that was produced by that discussion. I am keen to avoid this. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  03:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (There is also this one.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  03:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is now a discussion at AN/I about this article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  04:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tracklacers
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

For nearly two years I have struggled to bring some structure to this poorly written, self-promotional and superlative article. My only motivation, proven by my editing history, is to assist in bringing existing content to within Wiki guidelines, especially when it is such a blatant abuse of the open editing policy such as in this article. Unregistered users from a series of IP addresses (with no other contribution to wiki prior or post) revert my edits and change the tone of the article from what I try to present (unbiased, neutral) to something that I believe is inappropriate for this site. There are some obvious COI signs (e.g. the page was created by a user with the same username as the article subject), and they believe it is their right to direct the page as they so wish. They do not grasp fundamental basics (references, hyperlinks, grammar) but even revert my edits regarding this. My most recent tidy up was reverted in less than 4 days by an unregistered user who challenged me in the talk page. I invited them to visit several guidelines on relevant areas and justify their edits, giving justification for mine, but they almost immediately reverted my edits, removed my tag, posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals. Rather than get drawn into an edit war and breach the 3RR rule, I'd like to get a more experienced eye to pass judgement or offer an opinion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In 2011, I used the COI board. It attracted the attention of an editor who performed a small tidy up but didn't continue to monitor the article, so the editor resumed activity. I've repeatedly used the talk page to point out policy+explain my reasons but to no avail. The current incarnation of the phantom editor is particularly confrontational, the first ever of their 6 edits was this afternoon and they've really tried to wrestle control of this article from neutral/unbiased editors (i.e. me)

How do you think we can help?

This person is convinced I have a personal vendetta against them (the editor and the subject of the article), and as I'm not conforming to their demands, are refusing to accept anything I put forward. I believe there has been repeated and substantial breach of several policies and if a senior editor was to review the happenings and make a judgement call, perhaps the article can be edited freely by Wikipedia editors in line with Wikipedia policy rather than controlled by a closely connected party

Opening comments by 86.176.249.75
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Please see the talk page, I have invited Rayman60 to work with me in making the article one that everyone can enjoy, not just Rayman60 whom I would say has a personal attachment to the subject / article as in his words he has been working the page for over a year, I cant comment on that as this is my first batch of edits on the article. I have been nothing but courteous and polite and I am met with what I would describe quite frankly as rude and offensive comments like "posted incomprehensible ramblings and used a number of childish rebuttals" and terminology like war and call the shots as if to display some sort of power struggle eg "Rather than get drawn into an edit war" and "…you think you can Rock up here and call the shots". Every argument put forward by Rayman60 can be mirrored for example, the edits that I have made, which I might add were in place before Rayman started this onslaught to remove my comments, has been undone by he or she ill assume 'him' from the name.

Rayman60 clearly wants to 'Run the show' with this article, I have tried to accommodate his wishes and tweak my edits rather than just dismiss them example 'Grammy' over 'grammy' I have removed dead citations and added new ones as per his request. He has done nothing but ignore my requests to work together, he has used offensive language towards me and my edits and even since this dispute has gone back into the page / article and posted an other banner which holds no weight as it's clearly something we're discussing here, in asking for some sort of mediation. Rayman60 I have n problem with you, my only problem is that I have an extensive knowledge of music, the article and some of the artists mentioned and I have as much right to update the article as you do, it seems that most of your edits are based on your point of view and therein lies the problem. My edits, in my opinion fall within the Wiki guidelines but again i am open to adjust accordingly and keep it fair, I'm afraid that I can't comment on the previous editors. Thanks guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.18.223 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tracklacers discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Article on Harold S. Koplewicz
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Over the past two days or so another user and I have had on-going disputes as to wording, whether certain citations should be used, appropriate titles and references, etc. We have tried communicating with each other on the Talk Pages, but it seems that we are talking past each other, with each stuck and feeling that the other has some sort of personal agenda toward the subject of the article. I think the other editor is biased toward the subject and is manipulating the wording to promote the subject, and that editor accuses me of having a negative agenda of disparaging the subject. Since it has devolved into an edit war, I have advocated that we request Dispute Resolution and help from the community. He has not agreed, but I am asking for it. We both advocate that the article be deleted, but neither of us wants the other person to change our edits in the interim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Continual communication in the Talk Pages, but this does not seem to accomplish anything. We both agree that the article should probably be deleted, but for different reasons. I agree because I don't think the subject is notable. The other editor because of the belief that there are NPOV violations.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps it would be helpful if a neutral third party reviewed the article, our edits and Talk entries, and proposed either alternatives or suggested a way to insure that what is written is in conformity with WP guidelines.

Opening comments by Jacksonjones1972
My point of entry to this article was numerous obvious and veiled anti-Semitic references to the subject within the article, almost all of which were the product of a small number of posters who had no WP history other than editing this one article. Antisemitism is a topic that interests me greatly.

In the course of editing out this violation of BLP standards, I found that two of these posters seem intent on editing and reediting to hold the subject in the worst possible light in every case. One small example is the insistence on identifying the subject by a reference to his work from a 13 year old article, rather than his professional title. Another is insisting (by repeated reversion) he be referred to as the "manager" of a publication identified by a woman's name (part of the publishing company), rather than his actual title as Editor in Chief of a research journal. There are many, many others, including personal conclusions of the editors not supported by the articles.

Taken in total with the antisemitic references, I believe there is an effort here being made to disparage the subject for some combination of his religion. and other biases of the editors involved. Thank you.

Article on Harold S. Koplewicz discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The term "commit suicide" contains a judgement, as evidenced by sources provided. Another editor disagrees and has reversed edits accordingly. Discussion has been extensive. Writer is willing to compromise on alternative terminology, and to provide voluminous additional supporting information. A loaded term in not neutral when there are various "more neutral" terms readily available.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have notified WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force of this discussion. WikiProject Death had also been notified.

How do you think we can help?

After reading the discussion, offer an impartial reference opinion supported by empirical or authoritative references (rather than opinion, conjecture, assumptions, or impressions). Writer argues that unsubstantiated/un-referenced arguments have themselves been shaped by the stigma promoted by the terminology in question, and thus cannot be unbiased.

Opening comments by GideonF
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Suicide#Revisit "Commit" language as Not Neutral discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Shephard Smith
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Since 2005, there have been ongoing allegations that Fox News anchor Shephard Smith is gay and may even support gay marriage. These allegations have been reported and discussed in a variety of news outlets, including the Los Angeles Times and the documentary film Outrage about alleged closeted politicians who oppose gay rights. Additionally, Shephard Smith had a public dispute with Rush Limbaugh because of a clip in which Shephard Smith appeared to cast gay marriage in positive light. He has been included in Out magazine's rankings of the most powerful gay men and women in America for the last several years. These are not tabloids, but mediums with large audiences.

Because these allegations are receiving more national attention and controversy in recent years, I (and other users before our dispute) have attempted to include information about the allegations. My recent edits made clear that Shephard Smith publicly identifies as heterosexual but has experienced accusations of supporting gay marriage and being gay. I dream of horses first reverted my edits with no explanation, then I reverted them back. Then Ducknish changed them. Ducknish said this was a BLP violation, claiming no allegations should be included in a Wikipedia article of a living person. However, these are allegations that have been covered by the national media and a documentary film that received much attention in 2009.

I believe this topic is relevant information regarding Shephard Smith as a cultural icon; regardless of whether the allegations are true, they have come to characterize how much of America understands him. Ducknish believes reporting on the allegations counts as misinformation and violates Wikipedia's BLP policy, even if the article were to state they are only allegations widely reported in the media and not confirmed. He also believes including information Shephard Smith's alleged support of gay marriage and referencing Rush Limbaugh's criticism is unnecessary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the allegations on the article's talk page, and reached out to I dream of horses and discussed the matter on his/her talk page. Ducknish messaged me a threat of being banned for reverting edits too much.

There has been much back and forth on the talk page of the article, so that may be worth looking at. One individual listed a series of sources, in addition to the ones I included in my edits.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can objectively look at the information to determine whether the allegations are widely-reported enough to be considered part of Shephard Smith's cultural identity. Then you can reach out to the parties involved with your decision. If you agree with me, revert back to my most recent edits or edit the info as necessary. If not, keep the page as is. Adding your decision to the talk page would be helpful as well, since it seems this is an ongoing issue.

Opening comments by Ducknish
I believe the fact that these are allegations is the most important one to consider regarding the addition of this content to the article. Shepard Smith's main notability comes from his career as a journalist, I think we can all agree on that. And with that, the focus of the Shepard Smith article should be on what makes him notable, his career. I perceive no benefit from including these allegations and speculations, when they add nothing to an understanding of Smith's role as a journalist. Unless he chooses to comment on it, we ought to accept this as a personal matter that has no place in the article, or at least, a greatly reduced place. The potential harm from repeating unproven claims such as these is much greater than any educational benefit from maintaining it within the encyclopedia. Ducknish (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by I dream of horses
I was reverting the edits because I thought they were vandalism. However, it seems that they were in good faith. My apologies to Cat spasms.

However, you have to realize that Shepard Smith is a living person. Adding such a still-controversial bit of information to the article could violate BLP. Even if it doesn't, it may adversely affect his career. Therefore, in my opinion, it should remain out of the article entirely until and unless he confirms or denies the allegations. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Shephard Smith discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

American History X Film Criticism
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I believe that the editors of wikipedia are giving undue praise to the film American History X which shows considerable violent content. Some viewers may be harmed by watching this film and wikipedia as a public resource should provide a critical viewpoint on this film. The criticism should say that this film contains excessive and unnecessary violence towards people of color. Instead the article sings the praises of this film which defends white supremacy by the way, and that praise will be harmful to an unsuspecting public.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried twice to add negative criticism about this film warning viewers about the violence in this movie. Both times my additions have been deleted.

How do you think we can help?

You can write a warning or criticism telling people that the movie called American History X contains substantial violence towards people of color. That people should consider not watching this movie because it defends the intolerant viewpoint that white supremacy is good. It is a horrible film and should never have been released to the public.

Opening comments by wiki editors
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

American History X Film Criticism discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Both the main and talk page articles of Common Core State Standards Initiative are very controversial in that they do not adequately reflect the national debate going on about this federal education program. The editor/s of the article is/are completely ignoring the critics who say that this program does not only set national standards for education, but also takes away local and state control from schools, parental involvement, and forces home, charter, Christian, and other private schools to adopt the CCSS, whether they want to or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Put my own 2 cents worth in and will call Editor Assistance in.

How do you think we can help?

Provide some guidance on how to incorporate legitimate documented criticisms on the talk page into the main article. Thanks.

Opening comments by Thurmant
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by FreeRangeFrog --seberle
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Nelsonheber
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

François Robichon de La Guérinière, User talk:Technical 13/2013#Please don't "fix" what isn't broken, Robert Kirkwood, 2007 Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles, List of bishops of Strängnäs
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I'm having an issue with another editor who seems to be intentionally chasing down my edits and reverting them in what I perceive as an attempt to harass me and I'm requesting mediation. The first incident was after which the editor left a note on my talk page of which I responded to. The user has since reverted multiple other edits of mine without just cause:, , and.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested the user stop on their talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like this to be mediated and request that if (s)he wishes to remove my tagging, that (s)he improves what the tags have been specified before removing the tags. If the user doesn't understand why I placed the tags there, the appropriate thing to do is ask on the talk page and/or my talk page and not just revert because they don't like the formatting cleanup I was asked to do.

Opening comments by Justlettersandnumbers
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

=== François Robichon de La Guérinière, User talk:Technical 13/2013#Please don't "fix" what isn't broken, Robert Kirkwood, 2007 Pacific Life Open – Women's Doubles, List of bishops of Strängnäs discussion === Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Constitution of_Hungary
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There are some important ongoing developments regarding the new Hungarian constitution and its amendments. The constitution and amendments have been widely criticized internationally by heads of state as undemocratic. International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele has written several analyses and critiques of the constitution and amendments -- in Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog as well as before the Senator Cardin's Helsinki Committee in Washington last week. I have been posting updates of Professor Scheppele's critiques on the Constitution of Hungary page and Users Biruitorul and Koertefa have kept deleting them on constantly changing grounds: are soap-boxing, recentism, unbalanced POV, NEWSORG and UNDUE. I have tried to rebut their grounds for objection, but they keep deleting. I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized: it is important that the basis for the international objections -- which are precisely those described by Professor Scheppele -- should appear to counterbalance them. (It is precisely this sort of tactic of media control in Hungary that is the focus of the international objections; the current government's parliamentary super-majority has become accustomed to controlling the press and public opinion in Hungary, as well as in Hungarian consulates and embassies abroad. This makes it all the more important that this should not be allowed to happen in Wikipedia.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried modifying the text, and many explanations on the talks pages of the text as well as the talk pages of the editors who were doing the deleting, including my own talk page. I have also asked David Goodman (User:DGG) to mediate.

How do you think we can help?

I think those who have been deleting my updates of the international criticism should instead be encouraged to post the other side's point of view: Those who are in favor of the constitution and amendments, and who think the international criticism is unwarranted. The more detail they can give about the contents of the constitution and modifications, and any errors in the criticism, the better. But repeated deletion, on multiple spurious grounds, is not the way.

Opening comments by Biruitorul
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I wrote a balanced summary of the recent amendment to the Hungarian constitution: one paragraph of description, one of criticism. Given the size of the rest of the article, I think this is an appropriate dimension. Also, this is not that significant of an event - yes, it's important, but it isn't, as Harnad claims, an "important, ongoing historic event... gaining more and more attention and weight worldwide". With all due respect, the last time anyone really cared about internal developments in Hungary was the Ajka alumina plant accident.

I vociferously object to the inclusion of the blog post in question. For one, no matter how many times Harnad repeats the phrase "International constitutional scholar and Hungary specialist, Professor Kim Lane Scheppele", that does not automatically mean we should be quoting her. And it's slightly misleading to say the comments appeared on "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times Blog"; there is Paul-Krugman-as-economist, and there is Paul Krugman-as-politically-opinionated-individual, and it's the latter who mainly runs the blog. The comments are partisan in tone, they are on a blog (i.e., not peer reviewed), they are editorial content - in short, they are not relevant to the topic.

And I'd like to point out that Harnad has spread around the exact same blog quote at Second Cabinet of Viktor Orbán, Politics of Hungary, Constitutional Court of Hungary, Fidesz, Viktor Orbán and, most ludicrously, given that it covers 2000 years, History of Hungary. Does Kim Lane Scheppele (note the red link) really have to be mentioned in all those articles? I happen to care about the article on the Constitution the most because I wrote it (and no, I'm not claiming I own it, but it's natural I should care), but this should be addressed. Harnad's strong feelings on the topic shouldn't be making a soapbox out of a whole spectrum of articles. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor Scheppele's analysis is now published in the record of the US Helsinki Commision [1a], [1b]. Critiques by others have also been published in the official working documents of the European Parliament [2],[3], [4], [5], by the Venice Commission on Hungary [6], Amnesty International [7 and Human Rights Watch [8]. --Stevan Harnad 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PSTS, we don't normally directly cite testimony delivered at hearings, official reports and the like, assuming there are secondary sources that have covered the same material and reported on the same topic. That being the case, I fail to see the relevance of this link dump. - Biruitorul Talk 18:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not at all how I read WP:PSTS. But if the objective is to describe specifically how a constitution curtails freedoms, according to the interpretations of its critics, and we are not allowed to cite hearings, official reports, newspapers, constitutional scholars or Nobel Laureates' blogs (because the Nobel Laureate is a liberal!) to that effect, what can we cite? Your summary does not make these critical points: if it did, there would be no need to attribute them to Professor Scheppele (if that is what makes you keep deleting them), just as long as they were clearly made. But the specific points of criticism are being suppressed, and they do need to be made. This really is a matter of balance. No one is proposing to delete the positive interpretations of the constitutions: just to to complement them clearly with the negative ones. --Stevan Harnad 03:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a minute, please: much of what you've said distorts or misinterprets my statements. The optimal sort of references are readily identified at WP:RS - "articles, books, monographs, or research papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community" (it's probably a little too early for those) or "news reporting from well-established news outlets" (of those there have been plenty, and the article touches on them). The problem with Krugman's blog is not that he is a liberal (I would object as strongly to citing, say, the blog of conservative laureate Mario Vargas Llosa); it's that it is a blog, with all that WP:BLOGS has to say about that, and his prize doesn't wave away that issue. In theory, I don't object to reporting what Scheppele has to say, provided it's in in an appropriate venue, say this one. But as far as criticisms worth mentioning go, those have been made, in descending order of relevance, by opposition Hungarian politicians, by European-level ones, and by American law professors. I'm not saying the last are completely unworthy of mentioning, but the focus really should be on what Hungarians themselves have to say, given that that has been given most weight by available news coverage. Attila Mesterházy and Gordon Bajnai may not be legal experts, but they are where the attention of reliable sources has been focused. - Biruitorul Talk 06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the core problems at issue in the critiques of the Hungarian Constitution is the freedom of the Hungarian press and media. The international criticisms of the Constitution are barely covered by the Hungarian press [9], precisely because of the threat of fines (or worse) owing to the Media Law under dispute. Hungarian press coverage is extremely unbalanced, by WP standards. I also find it very puzzling that you would find a Budapest trade newspaper a more reliable source about the views expressed in the US Helsinki Commision than the official records of the Commission itself. (It would also mean a lot less coverage of important current events in WP if they had to wait for published peer-reviewed learned-journal articles to be cited before they could be described...) --Stevan Harnad 11:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That blog's political opinion is, of course, not enough to support such a bold claim that the media in Hungary is not free. That blog is a clear POV, for example, it ends with stating that "those responsible for Hungary and the region in the State Department will not be swayed by Szájer’s twisting of the truth.". That's a clear political opinion and not what I would call a neutral approach... K&oelig;rte F a {ταλκ'' }  17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Supposing Hungarian press coverage is unbalanced, what about press coverage in German, in French or, for that matter, in English? Surely the tentacles of Orbánism haven't grown so powerful as to muzzle every important newspaper there is.
 * I don't have any special love for The Budapest Times, but your comment displays somewhat of a lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia generally works. There is no original research; flowing from that, we don't validate the significance of primary sources by quoting them directly, but only account importance to them if secondary sources have commented on them. For instance, although Scheppele did testify before Congress, no one seems to have found this worth reporting on - not, for instance, The Washington Post. Thus, since we lack secondary coverage of her testimony, for our purposes it's not worth repeating here. People testify before Congress all the time; it's only when the press decides it's relevant that their testimony becomes relevant for us too.
 * And like I said, it's surely too early for journal articles on the topic, but not for in-depth press coverage; in fact we already have such coverage in the article. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidence that the press has decided it's relevant: Financial Times: [i], [ii]; Wall Street Journal: [iii]; Morgenweb [iv]; Suedwest Presse: [v]. --Stevan Harnad 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Provided WP:UNDUE is respected, I have no particular objection to these sources being cited. - Biruitorul Talk 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the above resolve the matter then? I will take the 5-6 specific points of criticism made repeatedly by Professor Scheppele and since taken up by the international (and Hungarian non-governmental) press, paraphrase them, attribute them to Professor Scheppele, and cite, alongside the original source (the US Helsinski Commission archive) the newspapers above that have cited it. That strikes me as a reasonable resolution, and would be even better (and more revealing of the goings on in Hungary) if this summary were also followed by a point-counterpoint (to be written Ltbuni, in the way he has been doing and proposing to do) consisting of the official rebuttals by the Fidesz government. Then WP users would have a balanced picture of point and counterpoint, and could draw their own conclusions. --Stevan Harnad 11:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Koertefa
I have described my problems with user Harnad's additions on his Talk page. I summarize them here, too: it seems to me that Harnad is using Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Recently, he added lengthy criticisms about the new Hungarian Constitution, and even copied the same text to several articles    (same text 5 times) or    (same text 5 times) or (same text 5 times). I agree that there should be comments about international criticisms of the Constitution of Hungary on the appropriate WP article, but WP don't have to report about every single opinion, and especially copy-pasting the same text five times seems questionable. I was quite surprised to read what Harnad wrote: "I do not think it is appropriate, or historically correct, that only the official government view of the constitution and amendments should be summarized", since even before he started editing the article, it contained several criticisms and, if any, it was already a bit unbalanced towards the critical points of view:, for example read the 2nd paragraph of the lead (it is the version before Harnad started editing it). Of course, it is important that the constitution and its amendments received international criticisms, but a brief summary of the criticisms should be enough. The quotes should all be deleted, as they provide an excellent opportunity for POV pushing. Cheers, K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fakirbakir
I have to repeat myself. The "2011 Constitution" section is unbalanced and looks like a soapbox. This part of the article does not interpret the constitution itself, the proper analysis is missing, however concerns a lot about "democratic deficiency". Hungary is not the USSR. Hungary is a democracy. Objectivity needed. Lets see US Representative Chris Smith's opinion (he is the Co-Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission): Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is claiming Hungary is not a democracy, but the fact is that passage of the constitution did generate much comment, both domestic and external, and it's our duty to summarize that. No, not every single criticism, but a broad overview of prominent political actors' opinions is needed. There is some analysis in the "contents" section. I don't really think we should be quoting Smith, at least not that particular article; a source that starts "In contrast to international critics of recent Hungarian constitutional progress that offends their liberal ideology" is hopelessly partisan. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Global Governance Watch is a quite good source. See:. However, of course, we can site other sites as mandiner.hu Fakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, some commentary from a conservative think tank doesn't really have a place here, just like we shouldn't be citing Krugman's left-leaning blog. As for mandiner, which seems like another blog reproducing raw testimony: let's just say that the level of coverage there is not quite up to the "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" standard set by WP:RS.
 * There are quotable defenses of the recent amendment, but they're found in such reputable sources as the BBC, the Financial Times or Deutsche Welle. - Biruitorul Talk 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Norden1990
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Wikipedia is not the place of political propaganda. Wikipedia should use historical context, these very long POV quotes make the articles to unbalanced. For example absurd that this case appears in the article of History of Hungary. Furthermore the text does not contain the constitutional amendment itself but only the reactions. Mr Harnad did not try to inclufe the other side's arguments (government responses), that were wrote by only other editors. It is not yet clear the effects of this new amendment. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ltbuni
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This is the typical example of edit wars, each of the participants is convinced that he/she is right, and the other is evil, and she / he has the duty to draw the attention of the world to the incoming tyranny of Mr. Orbán / the unfair treatment of Mr. Orbán by the western media or the leftists. One opinion provokes the opposite side to intervene or to deconstruct the other's narrative (see point 5.). This is becoming pure politics. So, my proposals:

1. I think we should lock the article waiting for further events - people said many things against/for the constitution and will say as well, but NOTHING HAPPENED YET with the amendment: it is passed and now it is under investigation, but that is all. No resolution, no decision by the international organizations, what is more, as far as I know, even the official English translation is missing.

2. Since there is no official translation, we should try to compile some elements of it, not mistaking the legal text itself, for its interpretation. When I tried to "balance" the article, I added some letters, written by Minister Navracsics, Martonyi, and OV - some of them quoted parts of the text, and prof KLS's blog refers to an attached document, with the proposed amendement as well- We should copypaste some proposed rules from them.

3. Both side must be given place. That is why I added the US-concerns in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_Hungary&diff=542786588&oldid=542653973 In this version, the Békemenet is missing, while the other manifest is there. How about a "government reaction" section?

4. In the linked "Wikisource", I only found the 1949 Constitution. We should fix the article, with the actual text of the Basic Law as well, asap.

5. My English is not perfect, so anyone can fix it, I won't be upset... http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/viktor-orbans-grandiose-plans-might-be-thwarted-b-strasbourg-and-brussels/

--Ltbuni (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That the amendment passed and was signed into law is significant, so we should mention that. Also, "international organizations" don't have the power to invalidate it, so it's here to stay for the time being.
 * See WP:NOR - we're not going to start quoting at length from a 15-page document and adding our own interpretations.
 * Has anyone reported on the US State Department's concerns? See WP:PSTS; we should have a secondary source attesting the notability of that fact.
 * No, Wikisource does not have the Basic Law, but there is a link to it in Hungarian and in English, so that's not such a big deal. - Biruitorul Talk 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a big deal, the text is in the very heart of the whole pourparler. The link directs us to the OLD version of the Basic Law. I meant that asap there is an official translation of the whole IV.th amenedement, or at least of the revised Basic Law, we should upload it in the Wikisource, or link it in this article. I agree with You on the original research issue, but if a text contains the real legal text in English, why not quoting? The article now contains interpretation: "The amendment enshrines freedom of religion and allows constitutional complaints regarding the church law." It seems to me, that we just picked some rules arbitrarily as well. Where is the rule concerning the Court of Constitution? The whole edit-war will come to an end, if we present the  WHOLE text.

But I can accept what You say. Unfortunately the article now has links to an out-of-date legal text - at least we should change its title something like this: Text of the 2011 Constitution without further amendments. It's misleading now.

--Ltbuni (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible text of the amendment- I have just googled it:

- in English: (It was linked in the blog-entry of Kim Lane Sceppele) http://lapa.princeton.edu/hosteddocs/hungary/Fourth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20FL%20-Eng%20Corrected.pdf

- in Hungarian: www.parlament.hu/irom39/09929/09929-0055.pdf

I'd like to add them to the "External links" section. Objection?

Ltbuni (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of_Hungary discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a volunteer here at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd be happy to help with this issue. Let's wait for all parties to post opening comments before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Noleander, many thanks. I think the two of us have made our opening comments, as it's my additions and Biruitorul‎'s deletions that are at issue. (I'm quite happy with any additions by others, whether for or against the constitution and its amendments. The dispute is about deletions of my additions, which consist of summaries of the points of criticism of Professor Scheppele. --Stevan Harnad 03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let's wait and see if user Norden1990 will post an opening comment before we start a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We are still missing an opening statement by user Norden1990, but let's get started. If they join the conversation later, that would be great.  First off, I think it would be most instructive if we could see 2 or 3 examples of the material (&sources) that are proposed for this constitution/amendment material.  Lets start with users Harnad and  Biruitorul (and anyone else that wants to): can you post here (below) the exact material you think the article should contain (regarding the constitution/amendments), including footnotes/citations.  After these specific proposals are posted below, we can review  them and go from there.   Does that sound okay?  -- Noleander (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Stevan Harnad 11:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't know if this is relevant, but there's a similar kind of discussion going on at Ferenc Szaniszló, involving me, Ltbuni and <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a . Szaniszló catapulted himself onto the world stage recently when awarded Hungary's most important journalism award, only to return it following international condemnation of his anti-semitic and anti-roma comments on national television. Ltbuni and <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a feel that:
 * Jobbik shouldn't be called a neo-fascist or nazi party,
 * Awards given to other far-right figures at the same time shouldn't be mentioned, and
 * The importance of the award is dubious.
 * The users strongly feel that inclusion of the above material breaches neutrality and constitutes soapboxing. I would submit, however, that Jobbik's political affiliation, and the relationship of Szaniszló's award to other far-right recipients, and the importance of the award, are all well documented by sources. Furthermore, I don't believe the conduct of Ltbuni and <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a has been fair: both have removed substantial material from an article that took quite some time to research, and almost wholly ignored the sources provided in the article or on the talk pages, with one or two sentence explanations, and consider their own point of view to be a priori the neutral'' one, despite the sources I advance, and without providing any of their own. I should note they've also made a few helpful changes. In any event, this has just come up, and may be relevant to this particular dispute resolution. -Darouet (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are You talking about? Changes I made in the article ("both have removed substantial materials from the article")? Doubting the importance of the prize? Where did I do these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferenc_Szaniszl%C3%B3&action=history
 * --Ltbuni (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry am very busy, but will come back to all this shortly. You can see the Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló and page revision history for more info. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Ferenc Szaniszló article: I suggest that this DRN case focus entirely on the Constitution of Hungary article ... that way we are more likely to reach a resolution. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: still waiting for parties to post proposed material (with sources) here so we can compare and contrast. Also: I'll be on vacation until April 4 ... so I wont be able to participate in the case for several days. Parties are welcome to continue posting comments in this case during that period;  another DRN volunteer may or may not come along and help out. In any case, I'll return to the case around April 4. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Preparing text; will post after April 4.--Stevan Harnad 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm back from wikibreak. Parties, if they still want to pursue resolution of this issue, should post here (below) the material they think the article should contain, including sources.  Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing that there's been no activity on this thread since Noleander announced their return, I'm going to start a 48 hour clock for "Dispute has gone stale. Disputants are invited to re-file if the issue becomes inflamed again." pending a significant objection. Hasteur (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Notified each disputant listed in the top of the filing. Hasteur (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't close yet. I plan to post a proposed passage within a few days. --Stevan Harnad 23:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutici, Pomerania duringthe High Middle Ages
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Volunteer Marek added information to articles and drew a map based on details from Michalek, A: [http://books.google.de/books/about/S%C5%82owianie_S%C5%82owianie_Zachodni.html?id=TnIjAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y Slowianie Zachodni. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne.] These claims include: I contest the accuracy of these claims, as these are errors stemming from an overview work which can not be supported by any secondary sources. There are secondary sources confirming a campaign of Boleslaw into the Müritz area in 1121 and others confirming a Danish-Polish campaign against Wollin in 1130, which the overview work had just confused for above-named places. Michalek has published a series of overview books about crusades, West Slavs (where the contested details are from), South Slavs and East Slavs, so one would expect errors in detail rather than unreferenced novel theories about said details. I contest the inclusion of these errors in articles per WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
 * A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121)
 * A joint Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen in 1130 leading to the defeat of the local tribe who swore allegiance to the Polish duke.

Volunteer Marek insists on keeping these claims in the resp. articles / map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


 * Talk:Lutici
 * Talk:Pomerania during the High Middle Ages
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67 (aborted due to ongoing RSN discussion, which was then closed w/o outside input)

How do you think we can help?


 * Mediate the discussion that is running in circles for days
 * Participate in solving the case(s) by commenting from a neutral, policy-based perspective

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Obviously I disagree with Skapperod's characterization of this dispute. Pretty much all the relevant info has been gone over at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145. The Map is based on a reliable source and backed up with two additional reliable sources. It does not claim that "Stralsund" existed at the time, merely that the Duke campaigned in the area - this is simply incorrect on Skapperod's part. Likewise, while the original phrasing of the related text may have suggested that "Stralsund" existed at the time, the text has been appropriately reworded.

The Rugen/Rugia issue is different. First, the Polish-Danish expedition against Wolin is placed by sources at either 1129 or 1130. Second, the source states that the expedition to Rugia took place after the Danes sailed to Pomeranian towns (Wolin). So there's no necessary contradiction here. However, it is true that different source put the Polish-Danish expedition to Rugen at different years (1121, 1123, 1126, or this one, 1130) - this is simply due to incomplete historical record. I'm open to phrasing this better to reflect this ambiguity in the sources. However, what I do object to is the contention (unsupported by sources) that such an expedition never took place.

Overall, Skapperod has failed to back up his claims with a single source, he's just been trying to create pretexts to question the info which *is* based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutici, Pomerania during the High Middle Ages discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I volunteer here at the DRN noticeboard. This doesn't mean I have any special powers or what I say is more important that anyone else. It simply means that I am impartial and will try mediate this dispute as best I can.

Now, after reading through the dispute on the RS noticeboard I find myself slightly confused to what the basis of the dispute actually is. There's a lot of claims by one party against the sourcing and inclusion of sourced information. Skäpperöd, are you able to provide a source that contradicts Marek's statements? Additionally, as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity. If this is, in fact, the case then I see no reason for that to be brought to this DRN discussion and would request that Skapperod strikes it from the dispute overview. If he feels that it is not resolved then he is welcome to keep it in but we will be tackling each item seperately to avoid confusion Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 12:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Cabe6403, thank you for volunteering for this.
 * My point is that not all information that can be sourced must be included, it depends on how authorative the source is:
 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy, which is an integral part of WP:V, says that "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" are "red flags that should prompt extra caution."
 * WP:PSTS policy, part of WP:NOR, says '"Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."''
 * The claims and map inserted by VM fail support by any secondary source: The claims regarding 1121 and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map  in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question. The claims regarding 1130  are based solely on the same book (tertiary source) where the map is from, quote and pg nr. were not provided despite a respective request.
 * My stance is that per the above-cited policies, the material does not meet the criteria for inclusion, regardless of whether there are sources directly contradicting it or not. It is sufficient to note that there are no secondary sources at all supporting either VM's map or VM's edits linked above. I'd like to have an agreement here on this important point.


 * Regarding "as far as I can tell the claim that "A campaign of Bolesław I Chrobry against Stralsund/Stralow in 1121 (which includes the claim that that place even existed by 1121" was resolved in the RS discussion with Marek agreeing to clarify the wording to remove ambiguity." This has made some progress regarding the wording but is not resolved, as the map is still in the articles, and so is the claim that Stralsund existed in 1121 (VM has just exchanged the word Stralsund for the Polish exonym Strzałów). The 1939 secondary source which was initially thought by VM to confirm the disputed information turned out to not confirm that, it actually says "the Polish conquest also most likely covered the towns of Kockow (Güztkow) and Dymin (Demmin)" and "probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" . That is not stating a route or capture, and it is also far away from claiming that Stralsund existed in 1121, it is clearly marked as speculation by the author. Apart from that 1939 book, no other secondary sources speculate about the campaign probably taking that route, even though the campaign is widely considered by secondary sources. So we have an UNDUE issue here, we still have a map lacking secondary sources, a map failing to support article text, and a slight falsification (VM's "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" which implies that this place existed and was later transformed somehow, in contrast to "vicinity of today's Stralsund" per the source, which does not imply that this place existed back then).
 * Regarding the 1130 joint Polish-Danish expedition against Rügen claimed by VM, this is still completely unsettled, no secondary sources supporting that claim have been provided. I have in the above-linked discussions provided secondary sources for a joint Danish-Polish expedition against neighboring Wollin though and think the author just confused placenames, but I maintain that it has not to be proven that the information inserted by VM is false, but that it first needs to be substantiated that this information even meets the criteria for inclusion per above-cited policies before we engage in weeks of discussion. In the context of a mention of Boleslaw and the "Rugi" in 1135, there are some sources directly contradicting an 1130 capture of Rügen, e.g. the expert for Pomeranian history Lucht, Dietmar: Pommern und das Reich vom Beginn des 12. Jahrhunderts bis zum Jahre 1181, in: Baltische Studien Ser. NF, vol. 70 (1984), pp. 7-21, here p. 14: "davon, daß der Polenherzog jemals nach Rügen gekommen ist, ist jedenfalls nichts überliefert"; also Barth, Reinhard et al.: Die Chronik der Kreuzzüge, Gütersloh/München 2003, p. 88: "Rügen, das er noch nicht unterworfen hatte." The key issue though, as above, is the lack of secondary sources supporting an 1130 Polish-Danish expedition to Rügen.
 * 16:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The claims regarding 1121 [50][51][52][53] and the map drawn by VM are based solely on an identical map [54] in a tertiary source by a non-expert for the region in question . No, this is simply not true.
 * First, the word "solely" is false. Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map, in addition to the reliable source the map is based on.
 * Second, not a single source has been provided by Skapperod to contradict the info found in map. Instead he's making exceptional claims that this is an exceptional claim. It's not.
 * Third, the author of the book is a military historian, the publishing house specializes in history books. I guess one could describe this as a "tertiary sources" but so what? Tertiary sources can be used on Wikipedia. And like I said, it's also backed up by secondary sources.
 * Fourth, if you really think that "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)" is a "slight falsification" then I'm fine with the wording "vicinity of today's Stralsund" (nota bene, a settlement called Strzalow probably DID exist at the time)
 * Fifth, I would prefer to have the map/text issue resolved before we move on to the Rugia/Rugen issue since that one's much more complicated. This one's here is pretty straightforward and I don't understand why Skapperod insists on wasting time on it. Volunteer Marek 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Three additional reliable secondary sources have been provided to back up the map - VM, can you provide these sources here for me. It would be helpful also if you could explicitly state which part(s) of the sources back up the map. Skapperod, likewise to you, are you able to provide a source contrary to VMs map. We will tackle the issue with the map before we move on so if both contributors could refrain from discussing the other topic until we have resolved the map I'd appreciate it. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 18:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure.
 * The original source is Andrzej Michalek, "Slowianie Zachodnie. Monarchie Wczesnofeudalne"., 2007, Bellona Publishing House, one of the most respected publishers in Poland when it comes to history books.
 * The other sources are:
 * "Bolesław III Krzywousty" by Karol Maleczynski. This is an older but reliable source by a prominent historian, widely cited in subsequent later works . For the relevant passage search for "Stralsund" and use google translate.
 * Atlas Historyczny Polski - Historical Atlas of Poland, 1989 (I believe there are more recent editions with the same material). This source has a map showing areas "conquered" (that's a bit of a strong word as there was very little actual fighting that took place, the Duke just marched through and obtained oaths of fealty) by Boleslaw Krzywousty, up to Stralsund/Strzalow and including Demmin and Kockow (I assume that Demmin and Kockow are not under dispute by Skapperod any longer)
 * The Polish Way: A Thousand-Year History of the Poles and Their Culture, with a relevant excerpt available here (I hope linking to it does not violate copyright). Adam Zamoyski is a British/American historian of Polish descent. The relevant excerpt is "He (Boleslaw Krzywousty) recaptured the whole area up to and well beyond the Oder, as far as the Island of Rugen" - "as far as Island of Rugen" would include the area of Stralsund/Strzalow.
 * Volunteer Marek 18:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Michalek - the very tertiary source (according to the wikipedia definition in the WP:PSTS policy) which is disputed here. Not a secondary source.
 * Re Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975), p. 154  (Same as  but not as messy). This is exactly the 1939 secondary source I referred to above. Maleczynski contradicts Michalek's map by saying that probably the 1121 campaign covered Demmin and the vicinity of today's Stralsund. So no implying that Stralsund was there in 1121, as the map suggests, and clearly marking the course of the campaign as mere speculation, not as a definite fact as the map suggests by its arrows. For the map to match that secondary source, it needs to have huge question marks all over the respective campaign arrows and "today's" added to Stralsund, and then there is no point in having that map. This secondary source I provide as the requested secondary source contradicting the map.
 * Re Atlas Historyczny Polski - tertiary source, needs pg. nr. and evaluation if it is referring to the 1121 campaign or to the 1135 Hoftag of Merseburg
 * Re Zamoyski, Adam: The Polish Way, London 1987 (online excerpt) - tertiary source, no mention of an 1121 campaign, no mention of Demmin, Gützkow, Stralsund. The Rügen sentence might refer to the Merseburg Hoftag of 1135.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Michalek - I don't know what a "very tertiary" source is. Tertiary sources though are fine though. Cambridge Medieval History series are a tertiary sources. You're stretching. What you've left out of WP:PSTS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.", which shows that tertiary sources are fine. They are used throughout Wikipedia.
 * Re Maleczynski - Maleczynski DOES NOT contradict Michalek. He just says "probably" - how is that a contradiction? That is a pretty insane definition of "contradicts". If I say "X went to the store to buy milk" and you reply "yeah, probably", did you just contradict me? Also the map doesn't have "Stralsund" in it anymore, just Strzalow. And I was the one that provided this source not you.
 * Re the other two - the main point is that they don't contradict and support the other two sources.
 * Now can you actually provide a source which really (not "pretend") contradicts the map and the sentence? I've been asking for this over and over and over again, and your refusal to provide such a source or sources is to a large extent what had stalled the discussion at WP:RSN.
 * Volunteer Marek 19:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283. supports VM re Boleslaw “ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123”  If there is doubting Thomas, I can make a PDF copy and have an administrator confirm. Please contact me by email and I can forward copy. Also I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization.  I can also do a PDF of the map in question and have an administrator confirm. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You can do a quick and dirty confirm on Amazon books of The New Cambridge Medieval History Vol IV Part 2 page 283- do a search for Rugen and it pops up.“ he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” --Woogie10w (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The New Cambridge Medieval History is peer reviewed secondary source that that is reliable.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How does "reaching Rugen in 1123" support any of the claims regarding Demmin and Stralsund in 1121 or VM's map for the 1121 campaign or a joint Danish-Polish invasion of Rügen in 1130? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'd say that settles that, the sources Marek is using are suitable. Do both parties accept this and, if so, can we move onto the other issue at hand? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 05:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC


 * Which one of the sources is suitable for what? Could you please be more clear on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Cabe6403 Re VM's sources, I can send you by E-mail (berndd11222@yahoo.com) a PDF of map in Polish Atlas and page in Zamoyski book. The New Cambridge Medieval History should ice the cake. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is a sentence about 1123 supposed to 'ice the cake' about the disputed details of the 1121 and 1130 campaigns, and VM's map? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per The New Cambridge Medieval History Page 283 " In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania."--Woogie10w (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Undisputed. Do you have any sources regarding the disputed details? Do you uphold your claim that the 1123 sentence has anything to do with the details in question here? Skäpperöd (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Skapperod, can you PLEASE present some source of your own? This discussion has been going on for two weeks now and you have failed to present a single source to support your claims. Without that I don't see how we can progress here. Volunteer Marek 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That there are no secondary sources about that is exactly my point. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But there are, or at least is. Given above. Can you please stop denying the obvious. Volunteer Marek 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Skapperod's source Herrmann is available via interlibrary loan, it will take me weeks to obtain a copy. Skapperod please be nice and send PDF/MSword copies of relevant pages in Herrman to a 3rd party admin to verify. This is turning into root canal, give us a break we need to close this and move on. In any case I will request Herrmann via interlibrary loan.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what "Herrmann" source you're referring to. Volunteer Marek 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert--Woogie10w (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, but I'm not sure how that source is relevant here or if Skapperod actually brought it up in this instance. Volunteer Marek 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Herrmann has nothing to do with the disputed claims discussed here. Please do not discuss issues unrelated to the dispute at hand. Woogie10w claimed that Jerzy Wyrozumski's overview in the New Cambridge Medieval History 4.2, p. 283 "supports VM re Boleslaw". It obviously does not. I have access to the book and neither the 1123 sentence Woogie10w quoted nor anything else in there supports any details in question here, i.e. nothing about an 1121 campaign in or north of Demmin, nothing supporting VM's map, nothing supporting an 1130 Danish-Polish campaign against Rügen. At this point I'd first like to hear a detailed response of Cabe re so discussion does not derail further. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you were supposed to present your sources first, before he responds. Volunteer Marek 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Per CMH4/2in 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania. which includes Demmin and what is today Straslund. Skäpperöd cited Herrmann as a source in the Lutici article, I will request to see this book and see what author actually wrote about Boleslaw's campaign--Woogie10w (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121 is not in the source (and I dispute that), and even if it was, the sentence could not be read as if there had been a military campaign in that specific area in 1121. Herrmann (as above) pp. 384-5 mentions the 1121/22 campaigns to Stettin/Sczcecin and the Müritz (for that referring to Ebo III/4, as most secondary sources do). No other destinations are mentioned for that campaign (since Ebo does not mention anything but the Müritz). Again, that Wartislaw became Boleslaw's vassal in 1121/22 and that Boleslaw in 1121 launched a campaign from the Oder to the Müritz and back is undisputed, the 1121 dispute is about the claim that this campaign led Boleslaw through Demmin and the area north of it. So far, the literature provided here does not make such a claim, except for Michalek, and we should await Cabe's response on how which source is supporting which statement, or the map, or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted a request at the New York Public Library for Das historische Pommern : Personen, Orte, Ereignisse / von Roderich Schmidt and Die Slawen in Deutschland : Joachim Herrmann. Both books should be available by Saturday. Lets see what German historians have said about Boleslaw's campaigns. Both of these German sources were cited in the Lutici article as support for the campaign in West-Pommern.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding. I was pulled offsite in work today so didn't have a chance to drop by. The way I understood the dispute was that Skapperod was primarily disputing the 'source' of the placenames and details on the map created by VM. Woogie10w then confirmed the reliability of these sources (I also have the Polish Atlas VM refers to, it is a professional study published in 1998 by a Polish government sponsored topographical organization) and the details presented in VMs version of the map.

Skapperod, you are looking for explicit statement in a RS that 'the area of Demmin and todays Stralsund were part of Wartislaw's realm in 1121' am I correct? Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite, whether Wartislaw had been in control of the area by 1121 or not is not relevant here. I am looking, for quite some time now, for secondary sources supporting the disputed information introduced by VM into two articles and referenced to Michalek, i.e. a 1121 campaign by Boleslaw in the area of Demmin/north of Demmin, VM's map (there, the arrows pointing at Demmin and Stralsund), and a 1130 joint Polish-Danish campaign against Rügen. Apart from the secondary/tertiary issue, I fail to see how the sources presented so far support these claims. You say that "Woogie10w then confirmed [...] the details presented in VMs version of the map." I fail to see that either. Do you see, in any of the presented literature, a confirmation of either the 1121 campaign to Demmin/north of Demmin, or the respective arrows in VM's map, or a joint Danish-Polish campaign in 1130 to Rügen? Where? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The book (Michalek) on which the map is based on is a reliable source. The other sources which support what is in the Michalek's book are also reliable sources. The only thing you've done is claimed, strangely, that somehow because one sources (Maleczynski) says "probably" that "contradicts" the Michalek source. That is a patently ridiculous understanding of the word "contradicts". You have not presented ANY sources which contradict the map, or the fact that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of Demmin and future Stralsund. At a certain point you need to put some sources on the table rather than just obfuscating, otherwise the discussion becomes pointless. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And we can discuss the issue of Rugia separately. Volunteer Marek 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

How is This?

In 1121/22, Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area west of the Oder and took duke Wartislaw I of Luticia as a vassel, Boleslaw then controled the region up to Demmin (Dymin)-SourceSchmidt Das historische Pommern,  later in 1123 Boleslaw III campaigned in the area of Rugen-Source NCMH4/2. The Polish domination of the region west of the Oder was short lived and Luticia reverted to German control after 1124 Source NCMH4/2 Woogie10w (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Skapperod, are you able to present any sources that contradict the map created by Marek? I'm also feeling that this is more of a WP:RSN issue. I'm willing to keep it here however if Skapperod is unable to produce a source and continues to question the reliability of sources provided then I will ask that that issue be taken back to the RSN and we move onto the second issue. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 07:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403: This is not a RSN issue, and RSN has already failed to solve this. Please, as a neutral 3rd party could you reflect on the following to get the discussion focussed again:
 * (1) Michalek is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades . It is not an expert source for Pomeranian history, and it does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. Can you confirm this assessment?
 * (2) Said book includes a map about the 1121 campaign of Boleslaw III from the Oder river to the Müritz lake . It does not detail the campaign in the text and does not give any sources for the map. The map is basically the same map as the one VM had drawn . On Michalek's and VM's maps, campaign arrows point at Demmin and Stralsund (Demmin, Stralsund and Müritz lake are depicted by their Polish exonyms Dymin, Strzalow and jez. Morzyckie respectively). Can you confirm this assessment?
 * (3) Maleczynski, Karol: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Lwow 1939 (repr. Wroclaw 1975) qualifies as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. On p. 154 he says about the 1121 campaign: "Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin" and "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu", i.e. in the West the Polish conquest most likely covered Gützkow (Kockow) and Demmin (Dymin); and German and Polish expansion met in the areas of Müritz lake (jez. Mor.), Peene river (Piana) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund (emphasis added). Maleczynski does not say that the campaign targeted Demmin, he considers it "most likely," which contradicts the map presenting that as a definite fact. Maleczynski does not say that the campaign went from Demmin to Stralsund, as depicted on the map, he instead says that German and Polish expansion probably met in that area. Maleczynski does not claim that Stralsund existed in 1121, he is talking about the area of today's Stralsund, thus not supporting the "Strzalow" dot on that map. Can you confirm this assessment?
 * (3a) That Stralsund/Strzalow appears in an 1121 context is especially surprising as expert sources for local history say it was first mentioned in 1234, i.e. more than a century later - Niemeck (2002), p. 78: "Nahezu zeitgleich mit der Gründung des Klosters Neuenkamp findet sich erstmals in der Überlieferung die Siedlung Stralow, das spätere Stralsund erwähnt. Im Jahre 1234 ...;" Kroll & Papay (2007), p. 101: "Stralsund wurde [...] vermutlich um 1230 gegründet und 1234 erstmals urkundlich erwähnt;" Schäfer, Igel & Schindler (2007), p. 213: "In den erhaltenen historischen Urkunden wird die Stadt Stralsund erstmals im Jahre 1234 erwähnt. Dabei handelt es sich um eine Stadtrechtsverleihung, die zeigt, dass Stralsund damals als Ort bereits bestand, wenn auch - wie zu vermuten - noch sehr jung war." Do you agree that a mention in 1121 is thus an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim?
 * (4) None of the other sources brought up here, i.e. Atlas Historyczny Polski,The Polish Way and The New Cambridge Medieval History p. 283 support the claim that the 1121 campaign targeted Demmin and the Stralsund area. Can you confirm this assessment? If not, please cite how which source references which detail.
 * (5) So all we got here about Boleslaw in/north of Demmin in 1121 is a map in a tertiary source not specialized in Pomeranian history and we do not have any secondary source or expert source to confirm this, despite week-long research. We only have one secondary source (Maleczynski) from 1939 speculating that there was a chance that Boleslaw targeted that area in 1121, and which does not claim that Stralsund/Strzalow existed back then. Do you agree with this assessment?Skäpperöd (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section of the Lutici article Lutici there are two German language sources cited: 1-Herrmann, Joachim (1985). Die Slawen in Deutschland: and 2-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern. You quoted from both sources on your talk page yesterday. I ask Skäpperöd to please tell us what these two sources tell us about Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Please cite the actual text, not your rendition of what the authors have written.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this on my talk page, where I have already provided full quotes. I want the 5 questions above settled first, and though I am primarily interested in the mediator's response, you are of course free to answer them, too. But please, do not add anything beyond that here before this is settled, we can use my talk page for matters unrelated to the question of whether there are any sources supporting the 1121 Demmin/Stralsund bit in Michalek's map. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion belongs here not on your talk page. The two German sources cited in the Lutici article are relevant to the issue Boleslaw III’s campaign west of the Oder. Deminin is in fact mentioned as part of the region he controlled. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Demmin is mentioned as part of the area Wartislaw controlled, and it is not mentioned as a target of an 1121 campaign. Full quotes and translation are here, let's continue there. I think we agree that there is nothing in there about a campaign by Boleslaw to Demmin/from Demmin to Stralsund in 1121, so this is not relevant to the discussion here. Let's first hear Cabe6403's assessment of the points I raised above. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, we're just repeating everything from RSN here.
 * (1) Michalek is an overview work about West Slavs not citing references for the claims of interest here. - it is an overview work but there's nothing wrong with that. And it has an extensive bibliography.
 * (2) - I don't know what the problem is supposed to be here. You're basically saying that my map represents the source accurately (and no, it is not a copyvio as I made sure to make it aesthetically different)
 * (3) - The text and map only state that Boleslaw campaigned in the Strzalow/Stralsund area. It makes no claim that a city or name "Stralsund" existed. Strzalow did exist before Stralsund, though, but that's really irrelevant. Our article on the subject, Stralsund, says At that time (circa 1168-VM), the Dänholm isle and fishing village, both at the site of the latter town, were named Strale / Stralow, Polabian for "arrow". Yes I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but that does suggest that Strzalow existed before 1234. Anyway, like I said, that's actually irrelevant here. The wording states "in the area of future Stralsund", so that's taken care off.
 * (4) - The other sources support the claim that Boleslaw controlled these areas, including Demmin and Kockow. They don't explicitly state "Boleslaw campaigned in these areas" but, given that we have OTHER sources for that, it shows that the information is broadly consistent across several sources.
 * (5) - Again, saying "probably" is not just "speculation" (I guess that's a better way of putting it than claiming that the word "probably" "contradicts" the map - I'm happy to see you've backed off that ridiculous claim), it actually supports the source. The Malezynski source, while a bit old, is widely quoted and respected. I can provide a link to a book review from the 1970's which basically says it's still THE source on Boleslaw (gimme time to find link and get jstor access).

And again, Skapperod has not provided a single source to contradict the map or the text. Rather he's just been running the discussion in circles over and over again. Volunteer Marek 17:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Strzalow is just a Polish exonym for Stralsund. If you have a source that a place named "Strzalow did exist before Stralsund" please present it. For the rest, I am looking forward to see Cabe6403's assessment. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's also essentially the name of the place before it became "Stralsund". But like I already said several times, that's irrelevant here. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the first documented name of Stralsund was Stralow, which was used in the first mention of Stralsund in 1234. I have provided the respective sources in point (3a) of the list above waiting for Cabe's assessment. Please provide a source that some place named Strzalow existed before that, especially in 1121. That is relevant here as you put a place named Strzalow on your map for the 1121 campaign and claim it was targeted. How is that not contradicting the expert sources on Stralsund above who maintain that the place was first mentioned in 1234 (under the name "Stralow")? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Stralow" is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of "Strzalow". The distinction doesn't matter. This is an irrelevant and minor point whose only purpose seems to be to derail the discussion. Volunteer Marek 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Where did you take that "'Stralow' is just a medieval chronicler's rendering of 'Strzalow'" from? "Stralow" appears in the charter of 1234, as the first mention of Stralsund ever according to the sources I presented. You can view the document here. If you say it existed in 1121, you need sources of equal quality saying so or that information needs to be removed. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow. It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!). You're pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a "Stralsund" existing in 1121 in order to get rid of the map as a whole, simply per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The map/text makes no such extraordinary claims, they're purely your inventions. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is easily proven false.
 * First, re "It DOES NOT contradict "expert sources" (which ones? You haven't provided any, expert or not!)" - I have maintained from the beginning that no history of Stralsund sees its beginnings that early (i.e. in 1121 or before), and I have provided sources that it was first mentioned in 1234. If it was first mentioned in 1234, this excludes a mention in 1121.
 * Second, re "all that the map and text claim is that Boleslaw campaigned in the area of future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow." That is also not true and one of the reasons for this discussion. If the map and the text were actually talking about "future Stralsund/Strzalow/Stralow" we would not have this part of the dispute. But this is what you actually wrote:
 * The Pomerania during the HMA article, as of now states "1121 [:] Expedition east of the Oder. Bolesław took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin), and campaigned in the area of Stralow (Stralsund) and Müritz lake" That wording was added by you.
 * The Lutici article, as of now states that Boleslaw in 1121 probably campaigned "in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund)". That wording was added by you.
 * The map drawn by you and added to above articles, claims to be about Boleslaw's 1121 campaign and has a dot described as Strzalow with a campaign arrow pointing at it.
 * So your statement that I was "pretending that the map/text makes some extraordinary claim about a 'Stralsund' existing in 1121" is false, the text and the map are indeed claiming the existance of that place in 1121, and that claim was added by you. If you do not uphold that claim, fix the map and the wording accordingly to make it clear that there was no Stralsund/Strzalow/whatever in 1121, and we are done with that part of the dispute. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just seen the sources cited in the Lutici article. They make it clear that Boleslaw led the crusade against the pagans and that Deminin was destroyed.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "crusade" - in 1121? source? "Deminin was destroyed." - in 1121? by Boleslaw? source? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On pages 105-106 of Schmidt writes about Boleslaw’s mission to bring Christianity  to Pommerania. Boleslaw had the support of the Church hierarchy as well as the German Emperor. I characterize this as a Crusade. On Page 386 of Herrmann there is mention of an account by Edo in June 1128 of the destruction in Demmin.

On Page 386 of Herrmann there is an important point-in 1135 Boleslaw agreed to pay tribute to the German Empire for his 12 year occupation Pommerania and Rugen. In other words Skapperod, Herrmann puts  Boleslaw in Pommerania and Rugen from 1123-1135. Boleslaw led the Crusade against the Lutians with the support of the German Empire and the Church. The Pommeranian Duke Wladislaw was an alley of Boleslaw in his campaign.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood Herrmann, I have the book in front of me. Neither did Ebo report a destruction of Demmin in 1128 (per Herrmann or the original), nor did Herrman claim that Pomerania and Rügen were occupied by Boleslaw. I can provide you with translations/quotes from Herrmann on my talk page if you want, but let's focus on 1121 here. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Skäpperöd I don't need your translation - 1.Ebo reported the wartime environment in Demmin in 1128 2. Boleslaw agreed in 1135 to pay 12 years back tribute to the German Emperor for Pommerania and Rugen.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Skapperod I see your point re Edo in 1128, that was during Lothars campaign. However Schmidt mentions Demmin as an objective in Wladaslaw's campaign, Wladaslaw at that time was vassal of Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * VM's map is correct, he just needs to tweek the dates a bit 1122-1124, erase Straslund and add Rugen(per NCMH4-2). At this point we are spinning wheels. Lets move on.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Without access to these books it is hard for me to make a statement one way or another. However I will remind you that what I say is, by no means, binding. I am not given any additional authority over any participant in any dispute on the DRN. My judgement carries no more weight than others. That being said, Skapperod, your points:
 * You are claiming that the source is not a secondary source based on your opinion because " The author of the book has within a few years published similar overviews about East and South Slavs and else published about crusades". I do not see why this means the source is not reliable and viable. Additionally, another user with access to the book states there is an extensive bibliography.
 * Yes, the maps are similar. This is not an issue. Regarding whether its sourced or not, without the book I can't say. I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author. Sources can do that, it is us that cannot [[WP:SYNTH[[
 * The author does not say the settlement was mentioned by name in 1121, you say that point yourself. He never makes this claim, he is referencing the name of the area as it is known later in history. Therefore it is not an exceptional claim as there is no claim to begin with. I actually see no one claiming that the settlement existed in 1121, rather that events happened in the area. This is similar to referencing ancient history in, say Mesopotamia as taking place in today's Iraq - true but no claim that a country called Iraq existed thousands of years ago.
 * No, not without the sources. I rely on others who do have access and WP:AGF.
 * I do not agree with your assessment. First off, it's a loaded question due to your phrasing and as there are many variables to consider.


 * Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 21:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * re 1: You misread part of my statement, I wrote that Michalek "does not qualify as a secondary source per WP:PSTS." WP:PSTS the policy defining what in wikipedia is considered a secondary or tertiary source and how they are to be used in articles. It says "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources [...]" and Michalek does not do that. He is referencing not one primary source with regard to the 1121 campaign. In contrast, eg. Maleczynski does reference primary sources and provides his own thinking, thus being a secondary source per policy. WP:PSTS says about tertiary sources that they "are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources." That is Michalek, a broad overview summarizing the West Slavs' history. Novel theses are not expected from tertiary sources.
 * re 2: "I'd imagine its referenced in the text and the map is synthesised from the information to hand by the book author." No, the information in question here (Boleslaw's campaign in 1121) is only in Michalek's map. No reference, no in-text discussion. You can ask VM to confirm that if you do not want to go through the google books preview. But I think this is undisputed.
 * re 3: Exactly. Maleczynski is very precise about that, and that is in line with the sources provided in (3a). But the exceptional claim I am talking about, i.e. that Stralsund (under whatever name) existed in 1121, is not in Maleczynski, but in Michalek's map and VM's reproduction of it, which depict such a place in 1121. If it was the case that, as in Maleczynski, Stralsund is mentioned as a future place, then this part of the dispute was settled. But VM claims that it existed in 1121 in the articles        and the map.
 * re 4: The sources are online and linked above, except for the atlas, but Woogie10w had offered above to send you a scan of the respective page per mail. Some are non-English, you can ask VM for the respective quotes and translation for Polish ones and you can ask me the same for German ones. Whether a source references that Boleslaw's campaign in 1121 targeted Demmin and (future) Stralsund is a yes-or-no question, either it is in there or not.
 * re 5: Then please name the variables and we sort that out. Basically, whether something is in a given source or matches WP:PSTS is a yes-or-no-question which can be solved one by one.
 * re "Now, can I ask, what do you consider a resolution of this? Is the adjustment that Woogie suggested suitable or do you maintain the map should be removed in its entirety?" --
 * I want it clearly marked in the text that whether Boleslaw's campaign to the Müritz in 1121 targeted Demmin and areas north of it is speculative.
 * I prefer to have Stralsund (under whatever name) not mentioned at all, and if, it needs to be unambiguous that it was not there in 1121.
 * I maintain, that per WP:UNDUE, a mention about Boleslaw's expedition to the Müritz possibly targeting Demmin/areas north of it, needs to be as short as possible, because it does not have sufficient coverage in secondary sources.
 * We can follow Woogie10w's proposal to remove Stralsund from VM's map.
 * The map has other issues, too, eg. presenting a speculation about a possible route (eg Demmin) as a given. That could be remedied by applying question marks to (a) Demmin and (b) the campaign arrow pointing from Demmin northwards.
 * If we have agreed on that, we can move on to discussing another problem with the map, i.e. discuss how it can be properly shown that Stettin/Szczecin was taken in the winter of 1121/22, while the Müritz campaign was in 1121. If this is disputed, I will provide the respective sources. Right now, the map looks like Boleslaw first went to Stettin and then to the Müritz, while it obviously was the other way around.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting extremely tiresome.

(1) Yes Michalek is a tertiary source. But there's no "novel theses" here. You've made that up.

(2) Boleslaw's campaign as a whole IS discussed in text of the book. Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". The Chyzans are the Kessinians, with their main fort at modern day Kessin, which is actually to the West of Stralsund. Hence, the text and the map are consistent with each other. The map just provides other details.

(3) If by "very precise" you mean he says "future Stralsund" sure. In Michael's map "Strzalow" is explicitly marked. For what it's worth - and like I keep saying, this is an irrelevant red herring pretext - Michalek has maps for later time periods where he includes both the name "Strzalow" and the later name "Stralsund". This suggest he is aware that Strzalow was not Stralsund yet. At any rate (3a) we actually don't know whether Strzalow as a settlement existed and (3b) it doesn't matter because the map just marks the location.

(4) I guess he *could* ask you for quotes and translation from sources you provided... oh wait. You didn't provide any sources

(5) I agree with Cabe6403 that your presentation of the dispute/issue/sources is highly misleading. Your phrasing does not reflect the sources. As pointed out over and over and over again, if a source says "probably" it is NOT contradicting the claim. And it's "speculation" in the same sense as ALL history is speculation, since we can't jump in a time machine and confirm events for certain. Bottom line is that if a source says "probably in the area of future Stralsund" then that supports the map. You're the only one who somehow tries to flip the logic on its head here and that's why this discussion has been getting silly.

As to what you want:
 * I want...  - The current wording is duke Boleslaw III of Poland mounted an expedition into the Müritz area,[60] most likely took control of Gützkow (Kocków) and Demmin (Dymin) and probably campaigned in the area of Strzałów (future Stralsund). So the words "most likely" and "probably" are already in there ! You already got what you want.
 * I prefer...  - sorry, not going to happen. Stralsund is mentioned in the Michalek source, in the Malezynski source and also in this source (add that one to the pile).
 * Quote: W rękach polskich ponownie znalazł się Szczecin, wyspy Wolin i Uznam a ponadto na lewym brzegu dolnej Odry szeroki pas ziem, ciągnący się prawdopodobnie na przestrzeni górnego biegu rzeki Piany, od jezior Morzyckich aż po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu.
 * Translation: Szczecin, the islands Wolin and Uznam, were once more in Polish hand, and whats more, on the left bank of the Oder a wide pass of land, stretching over the area from the upper flow of the Peene river, to the Murtiz lake, to the area of today's Stralsund.
 * So we got multiple reliable sources which talk about Stralsund. On the other hand we have an anonymous Wikipedia editor Skapperod who just doesn't like the mention of Stralsund in there for some reason. Sorry, we go with the sources.


 * We can follow... - I don't know if that's actually Woogie's proposal, but no, we do not remove Stralsund from the map, just because some guy Skapperod thinks so. It's in the source. Other sources support its inclusion. Sources, sources, sources. If you can present a source which contradicts the map then please do so already!
 * The map... - No, that'd be Original Research. You might want question marks in there but then find a source that has a map with question marks in it. This source doesn't. We stick with sources. The map stays as it is.

Bottom line: Sources vs. Skapperod? Sources win. Sorry. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * re "Michalek does not name Stralsund explicitly in the text but generally states that Boleslaw arrived in the "land of the Chyzans". " Can you please provide a pg. nr. and the respective quote? Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * re Kowalski (1980), p. 108: "dzisiejszego Stralsundu" / "today's Stralsund" - "today's" ! No claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121. It makes no mention of 1121 anyway, but in the following sentence says that Boleslaw had to pay tribute to the emperor for Western Pomerania, which is referring to 1135.
 * re "we do not remove Stralsund from the map, just because some guy Skapperod thinks so. It's in the source. Other sources support its inclusion. Sources, sources, sources." --- Please cite here, with full quote, sources that claim Stralsund existed, under whatever name, in 1121, in addition to Michalek's map. You have so far failed to do so.
 * re "No, that'd be Original Research. You might want question marks in there but then find a source that has a map with question marks in it." --- It certainly does not violate WP:NOR to draw a map based on a secondary source, i.e. Maleczynski as cited above. If the source says that a campaign probably took a respective course, there is no OR in depicting that with a question mark. Cabe6403?
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "land of the Chyzans" - the page is 101, but actually I was imprecise. The text states that when Lothair got to the land of the Chyzans he could not go further east as he would encounter and risk a war with Boleslaw. My mistake (it's late here and I'm tired), but it doesn't change anything.
 * No claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121. - So what? No claim that Stralsund existed is being made. That's just a bad faithed excuse you invented to try and get rid of the map.
 * Please cite here, with full quote, sources that claim Stralsund existed - No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made. That's just a bad faithed excuse you invented to try and get rid of the map. The only claim is that Boleslaw campaigned and controlled the area around future Stralsund.
 * If the source says that a campaign probably took a respective course - yes, and then there's another source that has a map with an arrow in it. I know! Why not we use the source that actually has a map. Maybe some guy named Michalek has wrote a book about it or something... The "question marks" are you a product of your own imagination - i.e. unsourced OR. What's next, we attach confidence intervals to the arrows?
 * And for the millionth time: PLEASE PROVIDE AT LEAST A SINGLE SOURCE WHICH CONTRADICTS THE MAP OR THE TEXT !!!! The fact you have steadfastly refused to do so pretty clearly indicates that at this point you're not conducting this discussion in good faith. This is just being tendentious on your part. Which is why this is so frustrating. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * re Chyzans - Ok, that is what I thought.
 * re "No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made." Can you please state explicitly that you do not claim that a place named Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121? That would resolve this part of the dispute.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a single source which contradicts the information in the map or in any of the other numerous sources which have been provided? Volunteer Marek 10:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have NOT provided numerous sources supporting the disputed details in the map. Stop claiming that or provide actual page numbers and quotes that support that Boleslaw's 1121 campaign targeted Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow (which obviously includes the claim that this place existed back then). All you have provided is one secondary source, Maleczynski (1939), that says probably and today's Stralsund. All other sources provided do not say anything about an 1121 attack on Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow. Prove me wrong and provide respective quotes or stop claiming that anyone besides Michalek says so.
 * I have provided, with quotes, expert sources saying that Stralsund/Stralow/whatever was first mentioned in 1234. This contradicts Michalek's map who has it there as a target in 1121. I have also provided quotes of the sources  I used for the Müritz campaign, who make no claim about the 1121 campaign targeting Demmin or Stralsund. This information appears only on Michalek's map, a tertiary source written by a non-expert for Pomeranian history. Prove me wrong and provide respective quotes or stop claiming that anyone besides Michalek says so.
 * I repeat my request re "No claim is being made that Stralsund existed is being made." Can you please state explicitly that you do not claim that a place named Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121? That would resolve this part of the dispute.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue I see here is that Marek is providing a map faithful to the source while Skapperod would prefer every detail of the map be sourced individually (name of the settlements, direction of the arrows etc). It is clear we are unlikely to come to a compromise in this situation so I will make two statements in the hope that this dispute can be resolved.

1 - Marek, a few tweaks have been suggested to the text regarding the map clearer. Would you be willing to implement these suggestions to ensure that readers know that parts of the map are speculation on the behalf of historians (as are all reports about history many years ago - as they say, history is written by the winners)

2 - Skapperod, it is my opinion (in purely a third opinion point of view) that the case for including the map outweighs the case for removing it. I will therefore ask you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is already a consensus here that Michalek's map is a tertiary source. The WP:PSTS policy is binding for us. It says
 * ": Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
 * ---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow was attacked by Boleslaw in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. Policy forbids inclusion.
 * ---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. Policy forbids inclusion.
 * ---> The claim that Demmin was attacked by Boleslaw in 1121 has not been published by a reliable secondary source. There is one secondary source, Maleczynski (1939), saying that it probably happened. Policy forbids inclusion.
 * Unless policy changes or secondary sources are presented for either claim, or the map is changed in a way that it only has information that can be supported by secondary sources, there is no chance for inclusion policy-wise.
 * Next, WP:EXCEPTIONAL is also policy, i.e. binding for us. It says
 * Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; [...] claims [...] that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in [...] history [...]"
 * ---> The claim that in the 1121 campaign Boleslaw targeted Demmin and Stralsund is a surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, i.e. not by any secondary source, there is only Maleczynski (1939) who says that it probably happened. Policy asks for multiple high-quality sources.
 * ---> The claim that Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow existed in 1121 is likewise a surprising claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources, i.e. not by even one secondary source. Mainstream consensus is that the first mention was in 1234. Policy asks for multiple high-quality sources.
 * As long as these concerns are not eliminated, best by providing high-quality secondary sources explicitely supporting an 1121 campaign by Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow, or changing the map accordingly this map must not be included per the policies cited.
 * Cabe6403, how do you want to make your proposal fit with the cited policies? I really only see the chance of either sourcing it to secondary sources (that has failed) or changing it that it fits the secondary sources we got. Same goes for the sentences added by VM that say the same thing as the map and are sourced to the map. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is this kind of purposeful stonewalling and obfuscation that is making a resolution of the dispute impossible here. 1) There are no exceptional claims here, just Skapperod's own invented excuses, unsupported by sources, for getting rid of the map. See red herring fallacy. 2) And bad faith is evident in the selective quoting of the policy in regard to tertiary sources (historical atlases, Cambridge Medieval History, historical encyclopedias, are all tertiary sources used on Wikipedia all the time). For example, the policy also states Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics - that's exactly what the map does. Finally 3) secondary sources supporting and consistent with the map HAVE in fact been provided but Skapperod continues to act as if these didn't exist. Volunteer Marek 16:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:PSTS policy also says "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources" (you omitted that part in italics here). Where are these secondary (or even primary) sources for Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund in 1121? That tertiary sources can be used as cited from the policy above does not invalidate the fact that there must be secondary sources, too, which is unambiguously stated in the same policy (quoted above) and which is also the premise for using tertiary sources (as quoted in the first sentence of this para). That's policy, and binding. So instead of repeating ad nauseum that secondary sources have been provided for Boleslaw targeting Demmin and Stralsund in 1121, cite one that actually says so. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod the map can be sourced to secondary sources that have been presented in the discussion:


 * New Cambridge Medieval History 4/2 Page 283- Boleslaw was responsible for bringing Christianity to Pommerania. In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania, he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching Rugen in 1123” In 1124 he eased the rigorous conditions of this suzeranity.


 * Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, p. 113: Boleslaw reached lake Müritz and his vassal Wartislaw I conquered the Demmin area.


 * Atlas historyczny Polski (1998) shows Polish control of West Pommeranian region as a vassal state from 1122-1127.

I rest my case on these sources--Woogie10w (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * None of these reference Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121. These are the disputed details, and we need secondary sources for this and not for something else. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Skäpperöd VM's map is supported by reliable sources, IMO it needs some minor tweeking, 1121 to 1122. We should be thanking VM for putting in the time to prepare the map.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "VM's map is supported by reliable sources" - then please, cite where they reference Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121, which is a central part of the map. So far it's only Michalek, and he is a non-expert tertiary source. If you change the date to 1122, you need secondary sources for Boleslaw targeting Demmin or Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1122, and also for the Müritz in 1122 which is problematic (since in literature it is 1121). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per NCMH By 1119 Boleslaw subjugated Gdansk-Pommerania he then conquered western Pomerania in 1123 reached Rugen. In 1121 he (Boleslaw) imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania. VM's map is correct --Woogie10w (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NCMH says nothing about the 1121 (or any other) campaign targeting Demmin and Stralsund. The conquest of eastern and western Pomerania and the imposition of feudal overlordship is already in the article and is not disputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From one of the source provided: Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin - "In the west the Polish conquest most likely covered the towns of Kockow and Dymin" (i.e. Demmin). So it's sitting right there, it has been mentioned above, but yet Skapperod STILL keeps on insisting that this isn't backed up by a secondary source (in addition to Michalek), as if the source had magically evaporated between yesterday and today. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is Maleczynski (1939), and you can not source an information "that and that happened" with a reference saying "that and that probably happened." Also, there is absolutely nothing about Boleslaw targeting Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 in Maleczynski, he just says that German and Polish expansion probably met in the vicinity of today's Stralsund. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're just engaged in playing semantic games and trying to deny the obvious. One more time. If one source says "X happened" and another source says "X probably happened" the two sources are NOT in conflict with one another, they support each other. To deny this is simply bad faithed stonewalling. Likewise if a source says that "German and Polish expansion probably met in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" that SUPPORTS the contention that Boleslaw campaigned in the vicinity of today's Stralsund's. Again, to try and pretend that this isn't case is just pure SPIN. You've invented your own particular red herring and are trying to make the argument about that red herring, not about the actual issue. And there is the third source which says that Boleslaw came to control an area up to (future) Stralsund, which is, again, consistent with him campaigning in the area.
 * Can you provide a single source which contradicts the information in the map or in any of the other numerous sources which have been provided? Volunteer Marek 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And here is a source - on a not really related topic - which uses the name "Stralsund" for 1168, when "Stralsund" is supposed not to have existed . Here's the thing - some settlement on the spot of future Stralsund most likely existed (in 1168 and probably 1121). It was probably called Stralow/Strzalow. Not sharing Skapperod's obsession with... with, well getting rid of a particular map and obtaining his way and only his way on Wikipedia, historians will sometime refer to "Stralsund" before it was actually called "Stralsund" or as a simple short hand for "area around future Stralsund". There's nothing wrong with that. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Skapperod, At this point I am beginning to get pissed offWP:IDHT, we have haggled way to long about VMs map. The sources clearly support the map, there is no doubt. It is time to move on.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Break
Skapperod, consensus is against you in this matter, from a third opinion POV I believe the points Marek and Woogie are putting forward are legit and you are fixating on details per WP:IDHT. I will therefore ask again that you to concede the inclusion of the map pending minor changes to the text referencing the map in prose. I'm not asking you to like the map, merely to accept its inclusion. In this case, you should agree to disagree. If that can be done we can move on to the other dispute. If you are not willing to accept this then I am unsure what other avenue to pursue regarding Dispute Resolution since it is a voluntary process and requires one or both parties to compromise. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe6403, as a mediator in this content dispute, where one party says "it's not covered by secondary sources" and the other party says "it is covered by secondary sources," I expect you to actually look at the sources provided, most are online and each one can be made accessible to you and translated if you wish. My claim that an attack by Boleslaw on Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 can not be referenced to any secondary source can be easily rebutted by providing quotes from secondary sources unambigously saying so. Likewise, VM's claim that there are secondary sources stating an attack by Boleslaw on Demmin and Stralsund/Stralow/Strzalow in 1121 can be easily confirmed by providing exactly the same quotes. I think that not looking at the sources and asking me to agree on this proposal  which got the dates wrong (that the Müritz campaign took place in 1121 is referenced and undisputed) is not a solution here.
 * What I'd settle for re the article text about the Demmin/Stralsund bit is quoting and attributing the only secondary source we got that actually refers to these places in connection with Boleslaw's 1121 campaign, i.e. Maleczynski (1939). That would look like this:
 * ... [sentence about Boleslaw's campaign from the Oder to the Müritz in 1121].[fn for sec. sources and Ebo] Maleczynski (1939) says that Boleslaw thereby "most likely took Demmin/Dymin and Gützkow/Kockow" and, with reference to the contemporary campaign of Lothair of Süpplingenburg, "German and Polish expansion met at Müritz and Peene, and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund/Strzalow."[fn for Maleczynski with original quote in Polish]
 * After that sentence, I'd add that it had also been proposed that Boleslaw went via Nieden, and about the dispute about that.
 * I'd still strongly advise against keeping the map in its current state because of the lack of secondary sources supporting the Demmin/Stralsund bit in it. If this is going to be decided by numbers and not by sources here, I'd at least want an attribution in the caption like Route proposed by Michalek. I maintain though that per WP:PSTS policy the map should not be in there at all.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

on page 51/52 of Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, -Google Books Wratislaw was a vassal of Poland, he promised Pomerania to Poland, he paid tribute and was required to provide armed forces. He agreed to accept Christianity. In 1121/22 Boleslaw conquered the Settin-Oder region, his offensive toward lake Muritz was a brief episode, next Wratislaw with "total Polish approval" "wohlpolnischer Billigung" engaged in a campaign to subdue west Pomerania and conquered the fortress of Demmin.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Woogie, you mean Wratislaw. Skapperod, what's a source for Nieden? The map satisfies all wikipedia policies and more. It's fine. Volunteer Marek 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) And I should note that I'm only asking about Nieden out of interest. It's actually significantly to the East so it has no bearing on the Stralsund issue. He went through both - there's no "alternative" route here. Nieden is basically that big arrow from Szczecin to Demmin, just not marked explicitly. Volunteer Marek

All three of the arrows on VMs map are backed up with reliable sources:

1-lake Muritz by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52

2-Demmin by-Schmidt, Roderich (2009). Das historische Pommern, pp 51/52

3-Rugen region and Boleslaw is mentioned by name as seizing west Pomerania by the New New Cambridge Modern History 4/2 pp 283 (NCMH is a secondary source, there is an extensive bibliography of primary sources listed in the back of the book, the articles are by recognized scholars)--Woogie10w (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1 - undisputed that Boleslaw went to the Müritz in 1121, source does not claim he went there from Demmin.
 * 2 - not in source that Boleslaw went to Demmin in 1121 (source says Wartislaw took Demmin, w/o date)
 * 3 - not in source that Boleslaw went to Stralsund/Rügen in 1121 (source says Rügen 1123)
 * Cabe6403, these sources are accessible online. I can either provide you with the links or you can ask for the respective quotes so you can confirm/reject either claim. Is anyone opposed to implementing the Maleczynski quote as suggested above? Skäpperöd (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the sources but considering they are either in Polish (which I do not speak/read) or German (which I can understand but not to the level required to confirm the exact meaning of a source) I am reliant on other editors providing translations. This has the downside that there is always the possibility of something being lost in translation.
 * VM, what are your thoughts on the proposed sentence that Skapperod suggested above? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The source for (3) is in English, and can be browsed online, let's start with this one then. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * he [Boleslaw] then conquered western Pomerania, reaching R¨ugen (Rugia) in 1123. In 1121 he imposed feudal overlordship over Prince Warcislaw of western Pomerania; in 1124 he eased the rigorous conditions of this suzerainty. - Clearly he is in the area and you can only impose an overlordship if you're in control of the area so it must be conquered.
 * Vassel: A person or country in a subordinate position to another - Wartislaw is Boleslaws vassel so it's fair to say he was under the command of Boleslaw or acting on orders. Boleslaw himself didn't take anything, his army, generals, commanders, soldiers etc did the taking but he made the decision/order.
 * Pomerania (Pomerelia) contains Stralsund. The source linked states: ''by 1119 he had subjugated Gdansk-Pomerania (Pommerellen)
 * and he then conquered western Pomerania, reaching R¨ugen (Rugia) in 1123. - the Stralsund area was part of the West Slavic Principality of Rügen so I would say it's safe to say he was there between 1119 and 1123 at the very least Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pomerelia is the easternmost Pomerania (Gdansk=Danzig). Stralsund/Rügen (and Demmin) are the westernmost Pomerania. The area around Demmin was in 1121 still Lutician land, it only became Pomeranian in the subsequent years. The principality of Rügen was not controlled by Wartislaw in 1121, it was inherited/annexed to the Pomeranian duchy in 1325. This should be undisputed. So everything you based on these assumptions is invalid.
 * For Rügen (1123), I have added some background here. This is not the 1121 campaign.
 * "you can only impose an overlordship if you're in control of the area" - being in control of part of the area certainly helps, but that is not a precondition. Eg when the Danes imposed their overlordship on the principality of Rügen just a few years later (1168), they conquered the main stronghold (Arkona) and surrounding areas, and the prince with his trapped army surrendered. When the Danes imposed their overlordship over Pomerania thereafter, they devastated the coast and had Stettin surrender. They did not take each and every stronghold there was. Or when Henry the Lion imposed his overlordship over the Pomeranians in 1164, it took him one battle in the western periphery of that realm (in Verchen). Once you defeat the main army with the prince, you can dictate the terms of surrender.
 * "Boleslaw himself didn't take anything, his army, generals, commanders, soldiers etc did the taking but he made the decision/order." - Oh no, not Boleslaw or any other prince of that time, at least not in this part of Europe. Why do you believe that? Of course Boleslaw (and Wartislaw, and the emperor) were personally leading their campaigns. We are not talking about the modern world here, but about the Middle Ages in Central Europe!
 * There is a whole lot of questionable interpreting to do if you want to make the source fit the claim. The source itself does not say that Boleslaw targeted Demmin and Stralsund in 1121. You see that one has to twist and turn it and add a lot of additional information to make it fit. And that is the problem here.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're correct about some of the points above, but there's no "twist and turn" here that is necessary for Demmin and Stralsund. In fact it's a bit the other way. What exactly was in the Muritz lake area? Why would Boleslaw go there but leave Demmin, the closest large fort alone? To slap around some poor fisherman? What military leader would leave an enemy stronghold and force at his back and go to some fairly unimportant place? So Demmin definitely fits in. Stralsund does too when one considers the "border" between Boleslaw's area and those of the Emperor, or the possibility that Boleslaw reached Rugen during this campaign.
 * I'll get back to the sentence proposed by Skapperod shortly. It's mostly ok, but it makes it sound like it's only Maleznynski which mentions Demmin and Stralsund - this of course isn't the case, other sources do too. Also does this mean that the objections to the map have been dropped, at least for the time being and the "disputed" tag can be removed? Volunteer Marek 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"there's no "twist and turn" here that is necessary for Demmin and Stralsund." - if there was not twist and turn necessary, why has not anyone been able to quote a single secondary source saying something like "Boleslaw targeted/took Demmin in 1121" or "Boleslaw targeted/took Stralsund in 1121." We have this one Maleczynski (1939) who says that Boleslaw probably campaigned in this area and that's it. Compare to the Müritz, where there are ample secondary sources saying that Boleslaw targeted the Müritz in 1121 (and he did not target just fishermen there, the fisherman was what he left over). Or Stettin/Szczecin, where there are ample secondary sources saying Boleslaw targeted/took this place in 1121/2. But that is just not the case for Demmin and Stralsund in 1121, and there should neither be a map nor text be included here saying so. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep demanding a source that says "targeted" or "took" but it's simply not how the campaign worked. Boleslaw pretty much just marched through the area with his troops (probably doing some pillaging in the countryside) and forced the local rulers to give him oaths of fealty. There were no sieges or big battles (aside from Szczecin/Stettin) because the rulers did submit. And as you point out yourself WE DO have a secondary source which says that Boleslaw campaigned in the area. One more time, yes, it uses the word "probably", but the word "probably" SUPPORTS the map. And we have other secondary sources which explicitly state that Boleslaw controlled Demmin and Stralsund - that may not be the exact wording you're demanding here, but that's a problem with your demands, not the sources. Volunteer Marek 19:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "forced the local rulers to give him oaths of fealty." - show me one source about one Lutician ruler who gave Boleslaw an oath of fealty during that campaign. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Cabe6403. Are you in? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Do you agree that the claim that Boleslaw's campaign in 1121 targeted/attacked/took Demmin and Stralsund needs secondary sources explicitely saying so to be included in the article, per WP:PSTS and WP:NOR?
 * (2) Do you uphold your assertion that, per the New Cambridge Medieval history, "the Stralsund area was part of the West Slavic Principality of Rügen so I would say it's safe to say he [Boleslaw] was there between 1119 and 1123 at the very least" in the light of my response ?
 * (3) Maleczynski says about the 1121 campaign: "Na zachodzie podbój polski objął znowuż zapewne miejscowości Kocków i Dymin" and "Ekspansja polska i niemiecka zetknęłyby się w taki sposób ze sobą na przestrzeni górnego biegu Piany od Jeziora Morzyckiego ewentualnie po okolice dzisiejszego Stralsundu", i.e. "in the West the Polish conquest most likely covered Gützkow (Kockow) and Demmin (Dymin);" and "German and Polish expansion met at Müritz lake (jez. Mor.), at the upper Peene river (Piana) and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund" (emphasis added).
 * Do you agree with VM's assessment "WE DO have a secondary source [Maleczynski] which says that Boleslaw campaigned in the area. One more time, yes, it uses the word "probably", but the word "probably" SUPPORTS the map."
 * Do you agree with my assessment that Maleczynski clearly marked this as speculation ("most likely," "probably") and thus fails to support a statement/map which presents it as a fact.
 * Do you agree that in-text, it would be best to quote and attribute Maleczynski instead of interpreting him as proposed above . At least as a working solution. If other sources unambiguously support/contradict/add to that part of the 1121 campaign, they can be subsequently verified and included. That way, the knot re in-text presentation of the 1121 campaign was cut and some progress would be made here, and quoting a source will not harm anyone. The sentence containing the quotes would read
 * ''... [sentence about Boleslaw's campaign from the Oder to the Müritz in 1121].[fn for sec. sources and Ebo] Maleczynski (1939) says that Boleslaw thereby "most likely took Demmin/Dymin and Gützkow/Kockow" and, with reference to the contemporary campaign of Lothair of Süpplingenburg, "German and Polish expansion met at Müritz lake and the upper Peene river, and probably in the vicinity of today's Stralsund/Strzalow."[fn for Maleczynski with original quote in Polish]


 * The part I don't get about this whole process is that you adopt this inquisitorial tone ("Do you agree..." "Do you uphold..." - this isn't Socrates schooling his pupils) in an attempt to control the conversation, but you still haven't provided a single source of your own to contradict the info from Michalek, Malczynski and other sources I've provided. Rather you're focusing on semantic details and playing word games (first with Strzalow vs. Stralsund, now with "targeted" etc). Volunteer Marek 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree on just quoting Maleczynski as proposed above? That way there is no dispute about "semantic details" and nobody expects the Spanish inquisition . Skäpperöd (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are some tips on Haggling --Woogie10w (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It feels more like this . Volunteer Marek 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone opposed to quoting Maleczynski, as proposed above? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Skapperod I entered this discussion in an effort to help you. I am skeptical when dealing with Polish sources like Maleczynski. I was hoping that you would accept the NCMH as a source in order to save face. BTW my favorite cap is --Woogie10w (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If NCHM does not say that Boleslaw went to Demmin/Stralsund in 1121, we can not use it as a reference for a statement claiming so, it's as simple as that. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit wary but my concern is that you will later turn around and try to use the phrasing of the sentence to try and get rid of or tag up the map again (because the sentence doesn't say "targeted" or something). Volunteer Marek 02:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not present a single secondary source besides Maleczynski that discusses Boleslaw's alleged campaign in the Demmin/Stralsund areas in 1121. Not one. There is noone to quote except for Maleczynski for Boleslaw/Demmin/Stralsund in 1121. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So let's see... I did not present a source besides the source I presented, but then I did not present a source. Not one. Huh? What? You see why I'm wary of your proposal? Volunteer Marek 15:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe 6403? Skäpperöd (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Of course Boleslaw (and Wartislaw, and the emperor) were personally leading their campaigns" - I am aware of this, my point was he was commanding others. Boleslaw can't be in all locations at once so he needs to delegate (such as ordering Wartislaw to take Demmin.
 * The purpose of DRN isn't to rule on which side is right or wrong but to help resolve a dispute. You keep asking me to make rulings and judgements of various statements yet you have made no indication that you are willing to actually work to resolve the dispute. You seem to have adopted a position that you are correct and this DRN posting is supposed to affirm that view. This is not the case. You need to be willing to compromise to reach a resolution. Unfortunately, if you are not willing to compromise then we're just spinning our wheels here and we could go on for weeks. Skapperod, you are gaming the system by using the letter of policy to violate the broader principles of the policy. Please indicate some sort of willingness to comprimise on this as it't not a simple black and white dispute as you make claim to, otherwise I may have to think of closing this as unresolved and recommending it be kicked up to MedCom Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cabe6403,
 * I kindly request that you clarify, with diffs, where I have been "gaming the system by using the letter of policy to violate the broader principles of the policy," or that you strike that attack. All I have been asking for is that the information introduced to the articles can be referenced to secondary sources. It's not my fault if no such sources can be provided, or if the sources provided turn out to not reference what they are claimed to reference.
 * I did provide a compromise, i.e. quoting Maleczynski as proposed above.
 * The only time you have actually publicly assessed a source here, that assessment was full of errors. You eg. mistook Stralsund as a part of Pomerelia (easternmost Pomerania), and based on that error you claimed that Boleslaw was in the Stralsund area (westernmost Pomerania) in 1119. And so on. You chose to ignore my response , and that is sad. The proper process would be if we worked that out. I am willing to do so, are you?
 * If you do not want to assess the sources alone, probably another DRN volunteer can help.
 * Skäpperöd (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want the sources assessed we have the reliable sources noticeboard. Perhaps we have different views on how DRN should run. My view is that, since it's voluntary and my POV has no more weight that any other editor, the DRN volunteer should attempt to mediate the discussion by directing discussion not by making declarations and rulings. When I 'assessed' a source I simply gave my interpretation on it, as someone who has never encountered the area or the historical individuals involved I am not particularly well suited to evaluate a historical source for accuracy, especially when statements in the prose pull together information from multiple sources to make one statement. Regarding 'ignoring' your response, not true, your response picked appart my interpritation, which, as I have just explain why, I was hesitant to give as the last thing this dispute needs is another viewpoint, particularly if it's based on a limited understanding of the subject.
 * Now, I'm getting a little frustrated and I feel I am losing my objectivity in this matter so I will withdraw from this DRN and request another volunteer take over Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)