Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 72

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax
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

On May 23, User:DanDan0101 made three consecutive edits adding a section about a pair of webs.com websites to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax article. I reverted the addition, but he has repeatedly reverted me and it has gone back-and-forth for the past few days (though I don't believe either of us broke 3RR). DanDan admits to being Daniel Sun, so the addition is somewhere between an autobiography, a conflict of interest, and pushing a self-published site. I have attempted to explain why his addition is inappropriate, but he continues to re-add the material. The websites are entirely non-notable, and one does not exist yet.

I am not the only person to revert the addition: 50.46.154.28 also did so here (though he isn't really part of this dispute).

OK, I give up — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on DanDan's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like DanDan to learn what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion in the article.

Opening comments by DanDan0101
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.

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax discussion
I am a DRN volunteer and this appears to be a clear cut case so I will comment early, the webpages dont meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements and should be removed. As stated in the previous discussion between the involved users Wikipedia is not for things WP:MADEUP in one day, even if the creater thinks the site is the WP:NEXTBIGTHING -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As such I have removed the information from the article. Please do not reinstate without some reasoning backed by Wikipedia policy. Continued unsubstantiated reverts to include the information should be posted at the editwarring noticeboard WP:ANEW -- Nbound (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will leave the discussion open for now incase there are important points from the opposing party that need to be stated, which could sway the discussion - Nbound (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * has reverted the changes again, and again without cause. I would suggest taking the matter further to the edit warring noticeboard. WP:ANEW -- Nbound (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And now re-reverted it back? Might be worth assuming this is a good faith move for now, until any further related edits occur -- Nbound (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Post closure comment: This is a good faith move, Chris857. I understand now what the editwar actually meant and why you kept putting up-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDan0101 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Treatment Advocacy_Center
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
 * It should be noted by all editors involved that User:JasonAJensenUSA, is the current account of User:207.207.28.154 - Nbound
 * It should be noted by all editors involved that User:JasonAJensenUSA, is the current account of User:207.207.28.154 - Nbound

Everything on this article is one sided. It reads like a brochure from the "Treatment Advocacy Center". Anything "negative" is summarily removed. You can't even point out that "involuntary commitment" is a euphemism for forced drugging.

I have started this dispute resolution because this page has had long time disagreements as to what should be contained therein. I think full disclosure is important, so following the advice of previous suggestions in the talk page, I added a new section called "Censorship of Controversies" where I state that the organization has a website that invites comments on its facebook page but removes anything it doesn't like. This gives the impression that there is no controversy of these topics. Since they are using the reputation of Wikipedia to increase their appearance, I think this should be noted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried starting a discussion on the talk page. My edits were removed without anyone responding. They just said on the edit I need a "consensus"

How do you think we can help?

Help form an article that is not just an extension of the organization's website. It should be more neutral. Not just based on what the organization says.

Opening comments by User:207.207.28.109
User notified of DRN, using notice template at 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 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 Trilobitealive
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.

Treatment Advocacy_Center 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.

Page Plus_Cellular
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

Prone to linkspam.

I am hesitant to edit war to re-add this yet again:

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explanatory edits, edit summaries and talk page comments.

How do you think we can help?

You can take and/or suggest next steps - Keep reverting? RPP? Other?

You can provide an opinion on :Talk as to whether I'm right to say 'no reseller links', or suggest a compromise?

Opening comments by various IPs
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.

Page Plus_Cellular discussion
Links appear to violate WP:ADV and WP:LINKSPAM. I would suggest taking the page to WP:RPP as you have already suggested. The editors adding the links appear to be short term SPAs, and would therefore be unlikely to participate in the DRN process (they would need to all be individually invited anyway). Let me know if you do wish to continue the DRN process or if you would prefer the case closed so you can pursue possible protection via RPP. - Nbound (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Post Closure Comment: TransporterMan: You're mistaken; I followed procedure : "If you have already tried to discuss this issue already and have received no response from others, you may go back to the previous page and file a request - but this must only be done if you have attempted to discuss the issue first." - from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request after I clicked 'Not Yet'. I don't mind THAT you closed it, but your reason is invalid. Will go to RPP.--Elvey (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Keith Johnson (author)
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
 * (subject matter of dispute)
 * (discussion, mostly in this talk page archive)
 * 94.173.203.170 (IP address of filing editor)
 * 94.173.203.170 (IP address of filing editor)

I wish to bring to the attention of the WP community a dispute with one of its senior editors 'Reddogsix' over the notability (as used in its technical sense in WP). In essence the senior editor accepts the article - Keith Johnson is a writer, writing school science textbooks, principally about physics - but feels that the books titles themselves should not be listed as to quote the senior editor on his actions 'Removed fluff, this is not a resume' We seem to be in a position where we have a 'notable' article about an author who writes 'non notable' books.

We have had at least 8 exchanges, all of which can be found on the senior editors archive page, in which I have produce an increasing body of evidence culminating in references to 44 independent reviews of the books published in the Times Educational Supplement and school science journals.

I am looking for support that the books are 'notable' and the titles should be reintroduction into the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Bringing forward an increasing amount of evidence to support the 'notability' criterion Exchanges with Reddogsix

Post a note on the 'Notability' notice board on 24/05/13 no comment so far

How do you think we can help?

Assess the evidence produced that the works of Keith Johnson satisfy the notability tests of WK

Have the titles of his publications restored

Opening comments by Reddogsix

 * See below*

Keith Johnson (author) 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. Though Reddogsix has not yet responded, I do want to make a couple of notes, however: Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This listing is not yet opened for discussion. The listing editor should refrain from making additional comments until after Reddogsix has made his opening statement, above.
 * I have extensively reformatted and corrected this listing, including changing the listing to the listing editor's username rather than his IP address and correcting the name of the other party. I have also given notice to that party. To the listing editor: Since you have a username, please be sure to log in before editing; editing under your IP address now that you have a username can cause you to be accused of sockpuppetry.
 * I would ordinarily close this listing as being pending at another venue (here), but the request at that noticeboard is almost certainly doomed because, despite the term being batted back and forth in the discussion at Reddogsix's talk page, this dispute actually has nothing to do with notability. Why? Because, per this policy notability has nothing to do with article content, but only with article existence. Moreover, per Manual of Style/Lists of works:"Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article."
 * Due to the just-quoted rule, I would also ordinary immediately close this as resolved in favor of the listing author, but I believe that Reddogsix may wish to clarify what he is trying to say in the discussion which has taken place so far. For that reason I am not going to do so for a couple of days. But I would particularly ask that if he does choose to give an opening statement here that he address the MOS section quoted above in addition to whatever else he wishes to say.


 * I will acquiesce to the statement in this policy and Manual of Style/Lists of works. Thank you for taking the time to clarify the policies and resolve my misunderstanding. My best to all.   red  dog  six  (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
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

Several long term content disputes are ongoing and no party is willing to accept that their is a consensus on anything (Even after it has be discussed for months now). Right now I have open RFCs on the Background section of the article, the wording of various section, etc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

RfCs, conversations on the talk page (should review the Archive section also), posting on relevant notice boards.

How do you think we can help?

Help to bring to light any issues with the article and help all parties to understand the view of the other. Where there is legitimate consensus, help all parties to see that. In sum, help move all parties to resolve the remaining issues of the article.

Opening comments by Anonymous209.6
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 Arzel
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.

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 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:Digvijaya Singh_(politician)
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 include a section on Praise in the WP article on the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and current General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Digvijay Singh. This is praise expressed for Digvijay by his political adversary, current Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan who had commended and praised Digvijay in a public speech. So the praise is significant because it is by his political adversary who is occupying a prominent position and because the praise was expressed in a public lecture. Further the praise tends to balance out the criticism of Digvijay in his WP article. All the other three users do not want the section on praise to be included in the WP article of Digvijay.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Put this up for discussion on the talk page. User:Darkness Shines and User:MohitSingh have responded saying they stick to their position.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to insert the edit in the main article if you think it to be appropriate.

Opening comments by MohitSingh

 * It was a courtesy comment as can be seen from the occasion where he said so. It was an All India Kshatriya Samaj Federation Convention and both Chouhan and Singh belong to this caste. Chouhan had also praised the caste in general and said that it had played important roles in India. Both of them are the most known person from this caste in the state. The comment prima facie appears to be a courtesy comment. It may also be assumed from this news report where Singh tried to take credit for the development in the state. This clearly shows presence of any brotherhood between them as has been portrayed. This is just some of the leftover from a huge editing done by the user previously (now removed).
 * Article contains no information about his development work but just his praise.
 * Arguendo, this praise is not that relevant and worth that it may be put as a separate section in the biography page. At the max, it may be covered in a line after any line where his development works as Chief Ministers may be mentioned.
 * Wikipedia should not be used as a forum to put all praises for a person. The concerned user has just been trying to soapbox this page which can be seen from the history of the page.--Mohit Singh (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Darkness Shines
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 Sitush
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:Digvijaya Singh_(politician) discussion
Comment: The article should contain a little of both. The most important negative things about someone, and the most important positive things about someone. That is what we aim for; a Neutral Point of View (or NPOV). Having a section dedicated to the praise of someone would be giving it undue attention. Just mentioning that his political rival has praised him at one stage isnt. The article shouldn't be a soapbox one way or the other. Take the article on Adolf Hitler, most people would consider this man to be undeniably evil, and you could write an entire book on what he did wrong (many people have!). But the article itself just focuses on the facts of his life, and career; with comparatively little directly dealing with anti-Jewish reforms and the Holocaust. In essence, general criticisms of political (or any) views that people may hold, more appropriately belong on the page of the viewpoint, rather than the page of the person who holds them. This is even moreso true for those who are still living. -- Nbound (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia also has a policy on articles about living people: WP:BLP. And it is pretty comprehensive, both parties should try their best to follow it, even if it doesnt agree with their own opinions about how the article should be. Unfairly biased pages can be sbject to deletion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is no further comments I will close this case in the next day or so. -- Nbound (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

there is a dispute about whenever "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be included on the infobox as nazi germany's motto, there were users stating their position but it needs more users to get involved

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i tried reasoning with them

How do you think we can help?

make more third party users state state their position on the nazi germany

Opening comments by Diannaa
A better way for Peterzor to attract more participants to the discussion would be to open a Requests for comment. I am pretty sure the assistance of a moderator is not required at this point. My comments on the content are as follows: I oppose inclusion of the motto. This was a political slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not to my knowledge adopted as an official motto of the country, which its inclusion in the info box in the "national motto" field implies. Given that the only source provided so far does not back up the claim that this was a national motto, I am removing it from the article. My removal has just been reverted by User:Rjensen -- Dianna (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Boson
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 meaning of "motto" in the infobox is not clearly defined. I interpret it as "a phrase commonly associated with the country concerned and used nationally by the regime". National symbols do not have to be official. So I am in favour of consistency with other articles, fairly inclusive criteria, and broad editorial judgement - provided that the reader is clearly informed of the actual status of the motto. I believe its inclusion in this case is consistent with the criteria used elsewhere, for instance the motto Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit in the Germany article. In the case of Nazi Germany, there is added confusion because it was a one-party state in which there was a deliberate "equation" of state and party. So I was in favour of including the motto with an appropriate note, as a middle position. I do not think the situation is clear-cut, I have sympathy for the arguments against its inclusion, and I do not have strong views on the subject, so I am happy with any decision. --Boson (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nug
There is no basis why this particular slogan should be selected as a "nation motto". As Henry Conserv in his book National Slogans from Around the World explains, slogans were created for specific purposes, "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" (One Nation, one People, one Leader) was one of many used specifically to build support for Hitler, such as "Führer befiel, wire folgen!" (The leader commands, we follow!), "Alle sagen Ja!" (All say Yes!). Others were created build hate against Jews, such as "Deutschland Juden Frei" (Germany free of Jews) and "Deutsche! Wehrt Euch, Kauf niche bei Juden!" (Germans! Protect yourselves, don't buy from Jews!), and other slogans were created to control women's behaviour "Die Deutsche Frau raucht niche" (The German woman doesn't smoke), and others to condition German youth for war: "Wir Sterben fur Deutschland" (We were born to die for Germany) and "Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt" (Today we have Germany, tomorrow the whole world), and so on.

If there was one slogan that could be characterised as a "national motto" it would be "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), not only is this slogan reflected in the colours of the national flag, it forms the essence of Nazi ideology were the land is bound to German blood (and hence the exterminationist policies of "purifying" that land) and the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum that drove Nazi attempts to conquer Europe. --Nug (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Rjensen
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 agree with Boson. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kierzek
As I stated, it was and is one of the best known mottos but not the only one used, as noted above; I agree it is far from being clear cut it was an "official" one for the nation. The better argument is that it was a NSDAP propaganda slogan in the 1930s, pre-war. I am on vacation at the moment and have very limited internet access and time; I will therefore not be commenting further at this point. Dianna, Boson, Rjensen and Nug can carry on as to this just fine without me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany 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 a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the instructions at the top of this page and at WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Im also a DRN volunteer, I agree with Diannaa, insofar that an RfC is probably the best path to use at this stage. There isnt actually a dispute to resolve, just an editor wanting more discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the way I am leaning, but I want to see what, if any, the other named parties say first. Some folks don't read Wikipedia on the weekend. Edit: After seeing the comments from other participants, I agree with TransporterMan. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the Memorial Day long weekend in the US so other parties may not respond promptly; I dunno where everyone lives. -- Dianna (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure why the notification was removed from Rjensen's talk page -- Dianna (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My error. I saw the previous notice on the page and thought the bot had handled the notifications. That will teach me to edit while tired and distracted... :( My apologies; sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The opening party, User:Peterzor, has been blocked as a sock of banned User:Chaosname. -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like my colleagues Nbound and Guy Macon, I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Several points and opinions:
 * The indefinite blocking of Peterzor should not cause this listing to be closed since there are other advocates for the inclusion of the motto who have weighed in here. Peterzor's comments both here and at the article talk page no longer have any weight, however, either as persuasion or as a !vote, in accordance with the blocking policy.
 * The template documentation says this should be "National motto." That clearly contemplates that whatever is filled in will be "the" national motto, not "a" national motto. In order to fulfill that role, the inserted motto need not be officially–adopted (though if there is an officially-adopted one, it ought to prevail over any popular alternatives unless there was a popular one which was so popular as to cause the official one to be universally ignored), but if there is no official one then it should be one which by consensus or use was the motto which predominated over all other candidates. If there is any disagreement among editors over which one fits that bill, if any (and there is the possibility that there is no clear-cut predominant motto, in which case there shouldn't be any included), then that disagreement should be settled by reference to reliable sources. What should not be included is one which has no or inadequate support in reliable sources but which a consensus of editors merely likes best: all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable.
 * An RFC can be used to try to determine this matter, but it can also possibly be resolved here unless all of the participants are so locked into their positions that there's no room to budge. With all respect to my colleague Nbound, I'm uncomfortable with this case moving in that direction so quickly without the participants being willing to dig into the sources raised, but not really discussed, at the article talk page. That discussion can, of course, also take place in the context of an RFC, but there seems to be a rush in that direction when it could have been or could be done before reaching that point and better honoring the principle of collaboration upon which Wikipedia is based. It is, of course, out of our hands here at DRN: if a RFC is filed, then this listing must be closed.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

TM makes some good points, and I support them -- Nbound (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing proposal: It would appear that productive discussion is proceeding at the article talk page. While Peterzor's removal should not necessarily cause this discussion to be closed, neither should this remain open if the remaining editors do not feel they need DRN's help at this time. Rather than just let this sit, I'm going to propose that this be closed without prejudice against refiling. Unless multiple requests that this remain open are made here by the participants by 14:00 May 30 (UTC), I or another volunteer will close this in that way. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with TransporterMan. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh
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

Talk:Adam Kokesh

The page in question Adam Kokesh. He is ethnically Jewish, religiously Atheist, and politically anti-Zionist.

He is an Anti-war activist, whose stance on Zionism plays a part in his role as such.

Given that wikipedia requires citations for claims, i sourced the only (blatantly clear) citation where Kokesh described himself as an Anti-Zionist in clear and simple terms. That is his Twitter account.

Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Wikipedia:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases.

Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have spoken in Talk Page. Disputing user responds with statements, but very little understanding sentiment.

How do you think we can help?

Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Wikipedia:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases.

Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate.

Opening comments by SPECIFICO
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 believe that I fully explained my concerns concerning RS and BLP on the article talk page. To facilitate the resolution of user:DA1's concerns, I suggest that DA1 specify here, in DR, the proposed text and the reference citations that would support its inclusion in the article so that we can have a clear discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh discussion
Note: DRN notice sent to by me at 12:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC) -- Nbound

Is it possible to summarise (please, no more than a few lines worth at this stage), the points of each side so far? At face value, a self-published twitter feed meets WP:RS, unless there is reason to doubt it, or the article is relying upon the same twitter feed for the majority of its content. -- Nbound (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The tweet cited gave a link to an unintelligible youtube video which added later 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (correcting error, sorry!) did did not SPECIFICO  talk  15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) show Kokesh stating "I am anti-Zionist."  I am concerned that you refer to the policy in general, which is clear and undisputed, rather than the text, citation and behavior of DA1, which violate policy.  Let's get a clear statment from DA1 of the text and the associated sources that he proposes to put in the article.  I note with disappointment that after opening this DR thread, user:DA1 again added the unsourced content "anti-Zionist" to the article here: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
 * DA1, can you please, in good faith, refrain from editing the article while the discussion is in progress - Nbound (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * DA1 has again reinserted the non-RS text and I have reverted it per BLP.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note – Following a hacking incident in April, Twitter announced an increased security protocol for its' users. (See: .) So the question of "who" is posting any particular tweet from verified users should not be an issue (at least in the future). Also, please note there are 53 threads for "Twitter" on the WP:RSN. – S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)  Relevance – the article talk page had very little discussion of Twitter & the discussion above concerned Twitter. My FYI note points out that the security of Twitter should not be an issue.14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain the relevance of this to the matter under discussion here? SPECIFICO  talk  14:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, if you read the talk page, you'll see that twitter in general is not an issue in this discussion. The issue stated on the talk page is that the cited tweet did not contain a statement by Kokesh that supported the assertion in the disputed text.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a day or so behind on this article/talk page, but just as a general comment it would help A LOT if people would include 1) diffs of reverts and 2) links to twitter comment in question for editors entirely unfamiliar with the article. I myself will go back at some point today and see if I can figure out what is going on. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I did not know that this discussion had already commenced. I will have to apologize i actually reinstated the disputed statement before i could see this and make my reply here. I did not intend to abuse good faith, i am willing to nudge on that (if reverted edit).

The issue here is the use of twitter as a source, where subject (Adam Kokesh) has tweeted his solidarity with "Anti-zionism". His use of the phrase "my people" refers to his Jewish ethnic persuasion, since many Jews are Zionists. He however tends to the anti-Zionist persuasion. However, it seems from user SPECIFIO's reply here, that now the content within the source is being disputed and not the source itself. Well, in that case i must address the change in story. The content should not be disputed as the source is a verified account of Adam Kokesh. I would like to hear who disputes this. And, the "tweet" in question does state his solidarity with the Anti-Zionist persuasion. The added video link in the tweet is merely an added bonus (confirming his feelings), that being a video he made criticizing Israel. DA1 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not make a "change in story" and I request you strike your statement to that effect, which constitutes a WP:PA personal attack on me implies that I am not acting in good faith. Thank you. SPECIFICO  talk  19:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the tweet in discussion. It says: "Many of "my people" are anti-zionist. C'mon! Jews can be voluntarists too!" It is rather ambiguous since he's describing others and not being explicit about his own views. I'd like to see him make a clear statement, but this is not it. It just takes too much WP:Synthesis interpretation to say it means he himself is an anti-Zionist, though my personal guess he is (and of course that itself can have a very broad interpretation). He should write a detailed blog and resolve the issue :-) ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * — In response to user S. Rich. Yes, i have indeed brought up the twitter sourcing question on the Talk page. You may have missed it, since i did not entitle it "twitter" but merely "source". Here is the section in question: . DA1 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * — To user SPECIFICO, i have not made any accusations against you. I don't know what to strike out. I'm sorry if you have been offended by my use of terminology, but i must make a complaint of my own that you are nitpicky in your stances, both in article, and in this discussion. Please let us not be distracted by these side issues. However, if you are concerned about my language of "change in story", i am willing to hear a third opinion if that does indeed qualify as a 'personal attack'.
 * — To user CarolmooreDC and everyone, the tweet in question is rather blunt. If we are to bring a question of "broad interpretation", then i would actually say that not using his statement as an affinity towards anti-zionism becomes the 'broad interpretation' (of trying not to include it). Even then so, let us consider the term "anti-zionist". If you support anti-zionism, you by default become an anti-zionist. It is a political stance, where you are either pro, con or neutral; Kokesh has expressed his "pro". DA1 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said ambiguous I had another idea in mind so I'll spell it out. There is a "voluntaryist" middle ground: One can be for "Zionism" - the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - on a voluntary basis if it is on land voluntarily sold told to Jews. What the UN set up was hardly voluntary and 90%+ of the land owned by Jews (or the mostly the Jewish National Fund because it's afraid Jews would sell to Arabs) has been taken by force by Israels and so can hardly be said to be voluntary. Libertarians have written on the property rights issue with exactly this perspective and Kokesh has been known to have libertarian sympathies. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 20:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * — You're using 'broad interpretation' and bringing up ideas that Adam Kokesh has not used/said. I would follow your initial logic, and stick to the case at hand (Kokesh himself). Furthermore, the idea of Jewish settling on legally purchased land isn't the theme of "Zionism", which is the idea that the entire "Holy Land" should be settled by Jews (this is a separate debate, we best not distracted by).
 * — So going back to your initial point, lets assume that Kokesh has not directly addressed himself as an "anti-Zionist" but that he merely supports others (of "his people") who are. In that case, lets go inside the video he linked within that tweet. Proceed to the 1:04 mark, he criticizes Israeli actions towards Palestine (this is a key theme of anti-Zionist ideology); then lets proceed to the 1:11 mark, here he states "..Israeli Zionism. We can defeat this evil also". Here i must make the analogy, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it a duck?". If someone is clearly expressing anti-Zionist sentiment (and not any neutral/third-party sentiment), then he is an anti-Zionist. This combined with the Tweet remark itself should be conclusive. DA1 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We cant speculate beyond what has actually been said by Kokesh, despite his other affiliations. You can qualify the statement (if required) by inserting "according to his Twitter feed...", or "Kokesh claims...", or something to simillar effect. But anything beyond what is stated, could be considered WP:OR. -- Nbound (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does either or both parties wish to continue DRN discussion? If no further replies I (or someone else) will close the case within a day or so -- Nbound (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism
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

Personal attack - user 'Ross Monroe' has personal disagreement with some of the edits and accused me as 'pro china'.

Some of the attacks this user have

The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? [citation needed] please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

This user has strong "anti-china" point of view on the Chinese-related article. We should ensure objectivity on any article, regardless of political affiliation.

Opening comments by Ross Monroe
I did overreact and I have already apologized for that on the article talk page. But just look at the image to the right, the one that Durian is trying to add. Nearly half of Asia is labeled as part of China's cultural domain. It's not an ad hominem to say that this is a pro-China image. This image violates two policies, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality and its policy on reliable sources. No reliable sources have been presented so far that proves that regions as disparate as Siberia, Nepal, and Kazakhstan are part of the same cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism discussion
Hi, I am a DRN volunteer. The image shown above doesnt appear to be based on a reliable source, and as such it could be considered WP:OR. While most images are excluded: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." This article appears to illustrate an unpublished idea; or perhaps, a WP:FRINGE theory if only a few sources can be found. -- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any further statements to be made in regards to this case? If not, I'll consider both parties disinterested, and the case will be closed withing 24hours -- Nbound (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

political party
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

Is it mandatory that all biographies include what political party a person is a member of in the Unites States, past and present? We find that really intrusive and inconclusive and invasive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

maybe put in your guidelines

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.

political party 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.

Comment by closing volunteer: This would probably be better for WP:Village pump (policy).Howicus (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:requests for adminship/Mattythewhite
Have you discussed this?

Yes, I have discussed this issue in the edit summery.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

User is deliberately attempting to offset votes he does not agree with. Two by new users. Such activity runs afoul the principle of assuming good faith. The comments posted were not malicious in any way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to restore votes but Lukeno94 seems to be persistent

How do you think we can help?

I believe all votes should remain unaltered until the discussion is closed. Lukeno94 is welcome to refute the comments he disagrees with but he has no right change them

Opening comments by Lukeno94
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. Well, I have no idea what the IP thinks they're doing here, but anyway. The above RfA has been the victim of two trolling SPAs (ie, the named accounts here, whom aren't me, but made their first edits to the RfA), and the votes were initially indented following a discussion on the main page, and the talk page, by User:Bbb23 - an admin - due to their nature, in this edit:. I filed an SPI against the two SPA accounts, which was closed without action; a CU proved they were unrelated, which is fair enough. The IP reverted this indenting here, which I reverted once I spotted it here. It was then followed by the IP attempting to discredit my vote, promptly restored by User:GB fan. The IP removed the indenting once more, which I reverted again, citing consensus, and then the IP brought this here. The IP is pretty clearly either trolling, or violating WP:POINT, so this DRN should be closed, and the IP should be blocked. The IP has also claimed I have a WP:COI in this edit, but hasn't explained why this is (it's bullshit regardless). Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by scstadm
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 TXDRDGR
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:requests for adminship/Mattythewhite discussion
Two brand new editors commenting on an RfA is highly odd. They were indented for a reason. Obviously having a DRN is inappropriate given the discussion in progress at the RfA and I will close this case (out of our jurisdiction, is mainly a conduct issue). I would suggest the admin noticeboard if there are any further issues. -- Nbound (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

corporation, share, joint stock co and many others.
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 tried to argue my point about shareholder ownership on TALK under Corporation. This is the third time I've done this over the years as Admin archives the argument. I have listed numerous cites. No other editor has listed ANY cites. Yet somehow I lost the argument. Blue Haired Lady and others disagreed so much with my edits that they ganged up and got admin to block me after 3 reverts on Joint Stock Co. I was unblocked later and won the dis. res. so I reverted once and was banned. It's ridiculous. Admin is ridiculous.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Unban me so I can make the proper edits. The editors who fooled admin into banning me have again posted their incorrect information.

How do you think we can help?

Let's have it TALKED out on the Corporation TALK page.

Opening comments by bbb23
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 blue haired lady
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.

corporation, share, joint stock co and many others. discussion

 * Note: We arent able to unban you. You need to ask the banning admin for that. Also, if you are banned for something, you dont go back and do it again.
 * Note 2: Looked into this further and filing editor has been blocked for socking. No point keeping this open.

Energy Catalyzer
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 introduction the Andrea Rossi's E-Cat has two mistakes. 1. Claiming that no independent test has been run, when it has. 2. The selection of a negatively biased blog comment from Ugo Bardi, when there are better qualified scientists who say the opposite. See the end of the topic talk page for details. If I try to edit the piece it is immediately deleted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted to these two editors and neither will respond to the points I made. Summed up by AndyTheGrump's comment. "I am not interested in debating this with you."

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea. The facts seem plain enough. LENR is still a controversial subject but as time has passed it is becoming accepted. I gave the link where hundreds of peer reviewed papers can now be found. It seems that hot fusion physicists in particular are reluctant to even look at the subject, but it probably not even fusion. An on-going test has been run in class at MIT for months demonstrating the effect.

Opening comments by AndyTheGrump
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 Alexbrn
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.

Energy Catalyzer discussion
Note: I have placed notifications of this discussion on both Andy and Alex's talk pages. -- Nbound (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If he's not interested in discussion then the process here is not going to help at all (its voluntary). At a passing glance I would be leaning to WP:FRINGE, the consensus of the scientific community at large is that cold fusion is not possible. -- Nbound (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * When I was at school, a physics teacher said that if cold fusion were possible, things would be going bang all the time. If the device truly works, then its inventors would be describing it well, rather than obscure the experiment as currently happens. To quote from the article " Independent observers were not allowed to watch the measurements or make their own, and the plant remained connected to a power supply during the test allegedly to supply power to the fans and the water pumps." i.e. a case of WP:FRINGE no independent verification of the scientific results.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

History is littered with cases of breakthroughs that went against the scientific consensus. From the Wright Bros, through Ignaz Semmelweis ending up insane because he couldn't get doctors to wash their hands or Barry Marshall discovering H. pylori is the cause of most peptic ulcers. “Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory---let the theory go.”

If LENR were easy, maybe the world would go bang, but it's not.

You are confusing the test of Rossi's 1 MW plant with the recent independant tests organized and paid for by Elforst. How do you explain the long demo at MIT?

Rossi has no incentive to conclusively prove the E-CAT works as it is impossible to get a Patent on cold fusion in the US and proof would only spur competition. Parallel (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * what is the "long demo at MIT"? Bhny (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Google is your friend. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/hagelstein-public-invited-to-see-continuing-cold-fusion-demonstration-at-mit/


 * History is littered with scientific breakthroughs found by accident, however those breakthroughs are small when compared with the number of frauds and fringe theorists. If this experiment dating back several years now was correct, then the discovers would have let independent scientists examine the apparatus and results, and would have been rich and famous. Instead they obscure the experiment.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You miss the point that Rossi can't get IP protection and so has to keep the proprietary parts secret. His business plan is to set up a factory to make E-CATs cheaper than anyone else and expects the secrets to leak once they are on the market.
 * Unfortunately Cold Fusion is right up there with perpetual motion machines. Funnily enough, he cant patent the device because both Cold Fusion and Perpetual Motion machines arent eligible. Why? Because the consensus is they are absolute nonsense. Will some people (even scientists) still research these things? Of course... That doesnt mean that its not a WP:FRINGE Theory. Yes, theres a small chance we could be wrong... noone doubts that, the great thing about science is that it can adapt in the light of new evidence. Until then, though, we stick with the consensus. Wikipedia isnt a WP:SOAPbox, and it isnt the appropriate WP:FORUM to debate the validity of this theory. It doesnt appear you are willing to compromise on your position about the additions at all, even in light of Wikipedia policy, I will close the discussion shortly, as discussions where both sides are unwilling to cooperate will bear no fruit. -- Nbound (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already warned Parallel about using the article talk page as a forum both on the talk page and on his user talk page. It seems to have spilled over here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles
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

Aichik's edit (here) asserts that Knowles "copied liberally" from 3 European artists, citing a source for only 1 assertion. Not only do I think that this wording contravenes WP:NPOV, I see the information as wrongly placed in the "Public image" section. Here, relevant criticism of the BLP is made in line with her portrayal in the media; whereas the three instances refer to criticism for the artist's music videos. Two instances are already discussed on Wikipedia (Run The World (Girls) and Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)) in which a discussion of the instances is more informed and neutral. In both, the reports that she copied was made, but also the artist responded saying she viewed and was inspired by both pieces. The current "Public image" section asserts that other artists have copied Knowles, and although in part referring to public image, I think this should also be removed as it deviates from the purpose of the section; which is ultimately her public reception and not critique of her work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page and through user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Advice and mediation.

Opening comments by Aichik
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 76.189.109.155
First, I have absolutely no interest in this DR discussion, nor do I really understand why it was started. It looks like Aichik, who I don't even know, hasn't edited the article in several days (although I have no idea, nor do I care, what their past involvement in it has been). My only purpose in commenting in the article's talk page discussion, as I made clear there, was to give my thoughts on whether Aichik's sources were reliable or not, since they were being scrutinized. I see that Aichik participated in that discussion prior to my comments, and hasn't made any changes to the article since then. So, again, I'm confused as to why this DR was started, instead of just continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. As the DRN instructions above say, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page...to work out the issues before coming to DRN". As I said in my final comment at the talk page, "If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where." In any case, I don't care one bit about this content or placement issue. So with that, I'm out of this. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles discussion
Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. JennKR, please clarify 76.189.109.155's role in this situation. smileguy91talk 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! A volunteer added him to this DRN request after seeing his input on the talk page where he clarified how blogs may be used as reliable sources. He then concluded that as this is a content issue, he wanted no part in the DRN discussion. —JennKR | ☎ 10:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: I, like my colleague Smileguy91, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Since this listing has been open for a week and one of the two primary parties has not chosen to respond and the third has indicated that they do not intend to participate, then this listing will be closed as futile unless at least Aichik changes his/her mind by 16:00 hours on June 4, 2013 (UTC). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness_theorems
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

Thompson ('Arithmetic Proof and Open Sentences' Philosophy Study 2 (1) 43-50 (2012)) claims that only closed and not 'open' sentences containing free variables are capable of proof. Similarly, only gödel numbers of open sentences are capable of arithmetic proof. Gödel's key sentence stating that the gödel number of a certain open sentence is unprovable becomes unsyntactical. On this approach to proof standard proofs of not only Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but of the Diagonal Lemma, Tarski's and Löb's Theorems are all claimed to be blocked. Thompson's critique does not preclude proof of these theorems by other means. The issue is whether a short reference to this article (without endorsing its claims) should be made in the 'Criticisms' section of the Godel article. So far there has been a refusal by some editors to countenance such a reference without any sign that these editors have read or understood the article. Since Lob's Theorem is a corollary of Godel's Theorem and offers a seemingly unacceptable result (According to a leading text book it seems to allow the proof of the existence of Santa Claus) then there must be some measure of doubt about Godel's Theorem. No one appears to have refuted the claims in Thompson's paper. I consider its claims to be significant.I have posted summaries on the article on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted explanations of the article and invited discussion of its contents. To date no editor criticising the edit shows any sign of having read or understood it. I have listed everyone who might be relevant. I do not know how serious some of them were. Mr Eppstein and EEng. It is also not clear whether some of them have the technical knowledge to make objections

How do you think we can help?

It would be good to have a calm voice to ask people to address themselves to the intellectual matters.

Opening comments by David Eppstein

 * 1) The Gödel article has long been a battleground related to Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt but I don't believe this issue is related to Hewitt.
 * 2) The subject of the Gödel article has long been known as a magnet for kooks and crackpots, so high standards are necessary to keep the crazy out.
 * 3) Most of these people think they have disproved Gödel's theorem, which is very well established mathematics (regularly proven to undergraduates, etc); see WP:REDFLAG.
 * 4) There has also been some generally accepted mathematical research against Gödel's theorem, not disproving it but finding ways to work around it; see, e.g., some of Dan Willard's publications in this area. I am not entirely sure whether the work in question should be characterized as an attempted disproof or as a workaround, but I don't think clarifying the distinction is necessary to decide what to do in this case.
 * 5) The Philosophy Study article is primary and consensus of the established editors on the article talk page is that it is not reliably published (its publisher is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies and it is not included in MathSciNet, the database of all serious mathematics research publications).
 * 6) More to the point, it also has no secondary sources published by other people describing it (e.g. it has no citations in Google scholar, indeed GS can't even find the article itself).
 * 7) Therefore, this has all the hallmarks of material that should be kept out of this article and in any case does not meet the usual standards for Wikipedia inclusion.
 * 8) While I'm saying stuff here, I would like to WP:TROUT Fernandodelucia for editing my user page instead of my user talk page to notify me of this discussion.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Tkuvho
The recent article by Neil Thompson deals with Goedel's theorem and is in principle relevant to the page. However, there are currently no secondary sources at all citing Thompson's article. User:Fernandodelucia acknowledged that the absence of secondary sources is a substantial factor here. Therefore the inclusion of Thompson's article in the page would be premature. Tkuvho (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Prosfilaes
It's not a reliable source, and no reliable sources comment upon it. Gödel's proof of his incompleteness theorem is one of the most studied proofs in mathematics, and many brilliant mathematicians, including Paul J. Cohen, have looked for ways to invalid it and failed. I am very suspicious of any attempt by a law student to invalid a theorem accepted by the best minds in mathematics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by EEng
Comments added after discussion closed: I fully concur with David Eppstein, Tkuvho, Prosfilaes. It is necessary to repeat one editor's comment of more than a month ago :
 * The editors involved have shown remarkable restraint with this. It was only after months of abuse that a block warning has finally been placed at User_talk:Fernandodelucia. Hopefully that will suffice.

Unfortunately it has not sufficed. Fernandodelucia has made no constructive contribution at all to Wikipedia; his efforts have been entirely devoted to a year-plus campaign of insistence that the Thompson paper be inserted in this article. After Transporterman's comments closing this discussion, any further attempts by Fernandodelucia along these lines would constitute egregious, willful disruption per WP:ICANTHEARYOU and a substantial block will be in order, lest the time and patience of additional editors be further squandered on this non-issue.

EEng (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness_theorems discussion
Note: I have made parties aware of the discussion on behalf of the filing editor. As no invitations had been sent, that I could see. -- Nbound

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.

Financial Modeling
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

In 2012, the Official Financial Modeling World Championship was held in New York. The event was sanctioned by Microsoft (the owner of Microsoft Excel), Bloomberg, Deloitte, S&P, AMT Training and many other leading Finance, Excel and Financial Modeling organisations worldwide. The event has $100k in prizes and also had Professor Simon Benninga (the world's leading academic authority on Financial Modelling as a reference) as a lead judge. Thousands of participants were involved. The Modeloff is widely regarded as the highest standard world-wide for practioners within the industry. For further information, visit: www.modeloff.com. I have tried on 5-6 occasions to have 1 sentence (non-promotional, just a single line) included at the bottom of the Financial Modelling Wikipedia Page or Financial Analyst Wikipedia Page. Someone continually sabotages/targets me - by immediately deleting my additions. It is hurtful and undermines the major role that Modeloff has fundamentally played in helping students and professionals to grow and demonstrate their skills to an international audience. It feels like I'm being victimised or that someone doesn't fully understand the magnitude/significance of the Financial Modelling World Championship Event. I feel the world event is not being being treated with respect, equality and dignity. This is 100% a non-commercial or non-marketing activity. I'm happy for someone else to write the reference, in whatever format is deemed suitable. Thank-you kindly for your assistance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I would simply like to include my reference/link to the official world championship at the bottom of the Financial Modelling definition/Reference under the External Reference section. It is a simple, quick, basic request.

How do you think we can help?

Under "Financial Modelling" Reference, I would like the following: EXTERNAL REFERENCES "Modeloff - Financial Modeling World Championships [www.modeloff.com)

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.

Financial Modeling 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.
 * BigDataGuru1, have you tried discussing with any of the Wikipedia users as to whether this article conforms with notability rules? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you are trying to create a page out of scratch and when this is done, it has to be deemed sufficiently notable. Were any reasons given to you as to why it was deleted? CarringtonEnglish  *chat*  19:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He is not trying to make a page from scratch, he just put a typo in the page link above. He is trying to edit Financial_modeling. However, there does not appear to be any talk page discussion (or discussion anywhere else) regarding this issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just realised that, sorry. So he is trying to provide a reference to an aspect of the topic then? CarringtonEnglish  *chat*  19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandom and associated Talk Page
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

When I was alerted to a COI posting at the top of the entry about me (living person), I tried to engage with editors on the Talk Page in a civil tone. In response, I was -- in essence -- called a liar; hardly a civil response. My reaction (which could have been less animated and more Borg-like in its nature) prompted further negative comments, and the deletion of more and more of the Article about me. Now, it is down to a bare nub. One might as well simply say, "Mr. Sandom was born," and leave it at that. It adds no value to those who are seeking to learn more about me or my past. I may be accused of "soapbox" behaviour -- on the associated Talk Page, NOT on the Article Page. I may also be accused of being a vocal critic of Wikipedia and Web 2.0 itself; I don't find "critic" in this case to be a negative term, but I do have a point of view and would like to see Wikipedia adapt and respond to many of its critics, including me. That said, I don't believe that the current Article really does much of anything except prove that Wikipedia's editors don't always have a great command of the language, and that some are prone to "revenge editing". I would like to see an Administrator or more seasoned editor take a look at the article and clean it up based upon ALL the suggestions that have been made over the last couple of weeks. Thanking you in advance, J.G. Sandom

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dialogue on the Talk Page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like the individuals who are already involved in this debate (including myself, the subject of the Article) to step aside and let fresh eyes look at the matter.

Opening comments by Huon
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 "called a liar" claim probably refers to this edit of mine. I still stand by every word I said there, and Sandom confirmed that my doubts about his daughter writing those phrases herself were entirely justified. Given Sandom's numerous claims of what I did and what I deleted that are unsupported by the evidence, he couldn't complain that much if I had called him a liar, which I haven't (and I don't - I expect that was an honest mistake, not a deliberate lie).

As to the "revenge editing": We all know of Qworty. We may have differing views about pseudonymity. That doesn't mean every edit Sandom disagrees with is a personal attack by editors who are out for "revenge". WP:AGF is not a one-way street. Huon (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Bbb23
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 TheOriginalSoni
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.
 * "Any edits on this page were not done by me but by my 12 year old daughter" Except possibly this?
 * It's wikipedia's integrity which is questionable if a puff lay on this article for years(NOT sic) Of course, if I depuff it, its DRN business.
 * If you try removing stuff from this page, my fans will add it again
 * Of course this magazine talking about Qworty is relevant to the current article discussion

I'll let those above diffs speak for themselves. All I've got to say is that I've shown exceptional good faith and patience when trying to deal with Sandom (Way too much than ought to be given), and we all can see what we're getting from him in return. I'd be willing to make a more substantial statement if it were not such an open-shut case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Cullen328
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. My involvement in this matter has been limited to comments on the biography talk page, Sandom's talk page, and my own talk page. All my comments were intended to reduce tensions; and to introduce Sandom to our core policies and guidelines and to the behavioral norms that make it possible to be a successful Wikipedia editor. He was critical of anonymous editors; I disclose my real world identity, and so I thought that perhaps I could serve as a diplomatic bridge in the early days of this dispute. I have made no edits to the biography itself. Sandom has responded to me in a friendly fashion, which I appreciate. However, it seems to me (I could be wrong) that Sandom's goal is to reshape his own Wikipedia biography in fundamental ways. This proposed rewrite seems not limited to correcting errors of fact, but also to areas of interpreting, shaping and expanding the summary of what the reliable sources say about him and his career. Not surprisingly, the rewrites he proposes tend to make him look better. This is natural, since he is a successful ad man and author with a forceful personality. It seems to me that Sandom has chosen the "wall of text" technique to win out over other editors, and I see signs of that same pattern of behavior in this dispute resolution. I understand this behavior, but can't aid and abet it. I will say nothing else critical of Sandom, as I perceive that he has done nothing more than what comes naturally to a man of his accomplishments. Accordingly, I will step aside and let fresh faces take over any rewrites of this biography.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandom and associated Talk Page 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. Pre-opening comment: It would be worth writing what exactly it is you would like to see changed in the article. You arent going to find a DRN volunteer who will read the entire talk page there. As well as any related material on user talk pages. Assume I am a complete stranger and discuss the case that way. At the moment all I can see from your overview is that you dont like the COI tag being applied? :S -- Nbound
 * According to this comment, he'll want to re-add anything that his fans might be interested in knowing about him, like who he went to school with, which schools he went to as a child, a teenager, an adoloscent, and as an adult. (No exaggeration) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm meant to leap in here...so I will. No, TheOriginalSoni, I could give a fig about providing my fans with information about where I went to school, unless that information adds value to their (and others) understanding of me as a writer and/or Net entrepreneur. My desire to include on (or do you say in?) the Article Page the writers under whom I studied while at Amherst is not whimsy, vanity or self-aggrandisement; it's a legitimate desire to help folks understand who my major influences as a writer are (or were). That's it. And surely you don't really believe that the "Early Life" section you scripted is actually superior to what was already there? Nor can I believe you think that the "Digital Career" section you've penned really provides any value to Wikipedia's readers? You may think this is an open-and-shut case, but I clearly don't. I am at a real loss as to why you and Huon have been so resistant to using mainline, well-recognized (not social media) sources to speak about my work; e.g. The Washington Post. Yes, the citation was reluctantly added back. . . but why was it so reluctantly reinserted. Truly, I am at a loss. For whom is Wikipedia being written/edited if not for those with an interest in the Articles they read? I really can't fathom how anyone might think the first of these two sections is the superior one:

Number 1


 * Digital career[edit]
 * In 1984, Sandom co-founded Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI).[1] In 1994 it was purchased by D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles.[2]
 * From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide,[3] a division of Ogilvy & Mather. [4][5]
 * From November 1999 through October 2003, Sandom served as President and CEO, and then Vice Chairman of RappDigital Worldwide, an arm of the agency Rapp Collins.[6][7][8][9][10]

Number 2


 * In 1984, Sandom co-founded Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), the nation’s first interactive advertising agency.[1] In 1994 it was purchased by D'Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles.[2].
 * From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide,[3] a division of Ogilvy & Mather. According to Forrester Research, the company grew to an estimated $100 million in revenues during this period, and became recognized as an "industry leader."[4] In 1998, for example, OgilvyInteractive was named “Best Interactive Ad Agency” of the year by Adweek, and won two premier Cyber Lions awards[5]at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival for Campaign Magazine On-line and the IBM Olympic Luge Game. Sandom is widely credited for turning Ogilvy’s digital offering around.[6]
 * From November 1999 through October 2003, Sandom served as President and CEO, and then Vice Chairman of RappDigital Worldwide, the interactive arm of direct marketing/direct response agency Rapp Collins, now a business unit of DDB Worldwide, an Omnicom Company.[7] RappDigital acquired a 50% stake in web production shop Critical Mass of Calgary, Canada,[8] with clients like Procter & Gamble and Mercedes-Benz, and e-mail application provider Innovyx, of Seattle, Washington, with clients like Microsoft.[9] Sandom integrated Critical Mass and Innovyx into the RappDigital network and, within a year of inception, RappDigital became one of the nation’s "Top Twenty” interactive ad agencies, according to Advertising Age,[10] at a time of industry contraction.[11]

Number 1 is the section edited by TheOriginalSoni. Number 2 is the section it replaced, written (and I'm just assuming here) by one of my "fans" this PM. Or was this done by a Wikipedia editor or admin? Anyone know? The bottom line, gentlefolk of Wikipedia, is that -- at least IMHO -- Number 1 really doesn't inform your readers, or tell them very much at all about me or my work (the subject of this Article), while the latter does. Now, it may not have the requisite citations. If so, please point this out. You may find it puffy. . . but I certainly don't when compared to so many other Articles here at Wikipedia. I really, really want to know. Sandom (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My post that was previously -here- has been moved below -- Nbound (talk)


 * I am afraid that the rest of my comments were supplanted by yours, Nbound. Let me try again:
 * Sorry, Nbound, I failed to answer your question about the COI. I don't care if that stays on the page for the rest of eternity; it points to the Talk Page, which I believe is revealing (for those who bother to slog through it).

I hope that you can see from Number 2 (above) what I believe would be appropriate for the Digital Career section of the Article. To make things equally clear re the Author section, here is what I submit makes sense. It is virtually identical to the Author section that TheOriginalSoni expunged this afternoon:
 * Sandom is the author of nine novels. He writes novels for adults under his own name, and has used the pen name T.K. Welsh[12] for some of his young adult (YA) and children's books.
 * Ranked one of the Top Ten Children's Books of 2006 by the Washington Post [13], his debut novel for young adults Kiss Me, I'm Dead (originally released under the title The Unresolved) was nominated for a Young Adult Library Services Association—YALSA 2007 Teens' Top Ten [14], the only book award recommended and awarded solely by teens. The novel was named a 2007 Association of Jewish Libraries Notable Book for Teens by the Sydney Taylor Book Award Committee[15], and nominated for the 2006 Cybils literary awards[16]. The Washington Post said, "(J.G. Sandom) writes with a precision and delicacy unusual for YA fiction,”[17] and called the novel, "a subtle gem."[18]
 * Of The Wall Street Murder Club, Kirkus Reviews said, "(Sandom) makes the first half of this sordid tale a Big Apple Deliverance, endowing New York culture with all the corrosively dehumanizing power of Dickey's wild nature. The second half is considerably more predictable, though never less than slickly entertaining, right down to the last, inevitable twist. (Film rights to Warner Brothers--and there's no mystery why.)"[19]
 * Sandom's most recent novel, The Wave, was reissued in June 2010 by Cornucopia Press. Kirkus Reviews said: "Sandom’s strength lies in the verve of his story...races from improbable to crazywild, all in good fun, with Sandom always one step ahead...A story with enough manic energy to be worthy of a nuclear explosion and enough to render moot any structural weaknesses in its architecture."[20]

The latter two reviews contain both positive and negative notes. The first (about Kiss Me, I'm Dead) does not. I really could not find any negative reviews from any major sources. If you can, please feel free to add that negative note to balance it out. I have written 9 books (well, 10, if you count the one that is done but has yet to come out), so I don't think that 3 reviews is excessive. If you guys do, I submit that 3 reviews on this author page is better than three Articles, one per book, which is what I see many authors have here at Wikipedia. Thanks. Sandom (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For Mr. Sandom's sake, attention is called to this passage from WP:COI:
 * ''COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely ... This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment...
 * In particular in this case, it is very likely that, should the article on Mr. Sandom survive any future deletion discussions, it will include a section discussing both his behavior here and his behavior on the talk page of "his" article. And here's a relevant passage -- a favorite of mine -- from the 1797 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
 * Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
 * EEng (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Post moved here:
 * The thing is, when there is a COI on a wikipedia page, which there is here... It is upto the other editors to decide what is and isnt in the article, what is notable, and what is not. As the subject of the article you have quite limited say in what is put in there. Please read WP:COIU, it is quite clear on what is acceptable. WP:AUTO expands on this a bit further too. Now you probably didnt have any bad intentions, and just wanted to make your personal wikipedia page better, but these rules are in there for a reason, and even the most well-intentioned editors can bias autobiographical articles (positively or even negatively). Now if there is information that should be in the article but isnt, dont worry, the thing with wikipedia is; that over time, articles tend to grow and get better. Its usually better to WP:LETGO and eventually everything improves, one way or another.
 * Is there anything specific to the article that is being put in there by other editors that there is problems with as far as WP:BLP is concerned? If not Ill move to close this case within the next day or so, and I would urge you to take a more back seat approach to the article. -- Nbound (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NBound. Nicely stated. But, to be clear, I don't look at this Article Page as my "personal Wikipedia page". It does not belong to me -- although it does have an impact, God help us all, on the perception people have about me and my career, and that's one of the reasons I've been so passionate about my concerns. Perhaps too much so, NBound. I'm sure Cullen328 thinks so, and I respect his judgement. Part of my concern about this Article and Talk Page is my concern about Wikipedia and Web 2.0 in general, and it's really not fair to take it out on you guys. So, sorry for that, but the diatribe is a direct result of your anonymity. Since I have no one to engage with personally (save Jim - Cullen328), you become a monolith, a brand, ciphers for Wikipedia. You become, in short, Wikipedia itself. Thus, your anonymity, rather than protecting you, makes you a target. Also, I guess, this has been -- in part -- a reaction to (I'd surmise) young inexperienced editors who, emboldened by their anonymity, say things that are rude or even insulting because they can. . . and can get away with it. If someone calls me a liar to my face, they know they might get a punch in the nose (metaphorically, at least). So, especially when they see me in person, folks generally are more circumspect in their comments. Huon was not. In the end, as I stated earlier on the Talk Page associated with the Article about me, you are judge, prosecutor, and jury -- all rolled into one. What can I say? I have made my case as to what I think makes sense as an Article Page about me -- not so very different from what has been up there for years and years. Had I kept my mouth shut, had I not tried to engage with you, had I simply used sock puppets to make selected changes to the Article, had I not been forthright and honest in my exchange, the Article would be very different today. But my parents always taught me to be open, honest and direct, and to stand behind my name. Perhaps, as you claim, Nbound, time will bring the Article back to where -- in my view, at least -- it should be. Perhaps not. Frankly, now that I've had my say (even if sometimes my say, and/or the say of my supporters was summarily deleted), it all seems a rather weightless affair. Thank you all for your input. What irony that the COI seems to have disappeared now that so little remains of the Article. A fitting end, I believe. If I ever get around to finishing the article about this affair that I've been working on, I'll make sure to let you know where you can find it. (So, no, EEng; I'm not worried about the publicity ... clearly. The more the merrier. Please post something about this exchange on the Article page, and put the COI back so folks will be directed to the Talk Page. That would be peachy.) Cheers and best wishes. I think I'll follow NBound's advice now and simply toddle off. Sandom (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sandom, I disagree with how you've gone about this particular matter, but I do think that there is an important core issue that has been raised here regarding editor anonymity. I won't go on at length, since this isn't the proper venue, but I encourage all editors who read this to ponder the implications of anonymity, especially those raised in far more egregious circumstances such as the Qworty affair. Enough said for now, and thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandom, the only reason the article is stripped back is that the edits with potential COI have to be removed, its not to actually remove the information itself (if you get my meaning). Once it is stripped bare, the template can be removed, and then work can immediately begin on rebuilding the article (and I hope that is started shortly). I would encourage you to offer guidance on the talk page, there is nothing stopping that, just keep within the guidelines at WP:COIU. :). I do appreciate the fact that you have been honest (I think we all do), and it probably has worked in your favour; noone has tried to obtain admininistrator intervention against you as far as I am aware, and this is probably only because you are the article's subject, given the amount of talk page information generated over this, I think its fair to say that the other involved editors have been relatively patient (this isnt to say I approve personally of their styles of response). I hope we do continue to see you around on Wikipedia :) -- Nbound (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In reply to EEng, I think it would be highly inappropriate to bring up these discussions on his article. It would be against WP:BLP most likely, and isnt exactly notable, (not to mention you would have COI youself then!). Its not the first time things have happened on the internet, and it certainly wont be the last. -- Nbound (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For other editors, it probably would also have been better if good faith was assumed in relation to the edits of the daughter. Its not like there was actual vandalism from Sandom, and it was something that had occured months ago. Even if you dont beleive him, saying he isnt telling the truth isnt going to get anyone anywhere, and makes the whole situation alot more confrontational. Save those kind of rebuttals for administrator intervention. -- Nbound (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this. Where did I say someone wasn't telling the truth? All I said was that a specific phrase didn't sound as if it was written by a 12-year-old, which Sandom confirmed it indeed was not. I only brought up that edit at all because Sandom himself asked: "If you have any evidence about whom it was that added said content, please let me know here [...]". I let him know as requested that the content had been added by his own account. I find it highly ironic that Sandom, the opponent of pseudonymous edits, tries to disavow some edits by his account. Huon (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We can get into the semantics of it all day (it was an implication, rather than an explicit declaration). But at the end of the day, whether or not edits were made by the daughter are irrelevant. They have no bearing on the content of the article [they would have been removed as potential COI just because they came from that account]. And the ensuing discussion involving the edits could avoided. -- Nbound (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that it doesn't matter what person made those edits. In fact I said so in no uncertain terms weeks ago. Now could we please stop resurrecting the "you called me a liar" line? Huon (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

religious views of Adolf Hitler, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
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

Clearly I am not the only one who has violated Wikipedia rules here, and as you seemed to be willing to guide this conflict, I would like to present to you my case against Ozhistory (talk), I left him this on his talk page in response to his accusations against me on my talk page. He proceeded to remove this as "vandalism", so I offered him the same courtesy in removing his comments from mine as vandalism as well. Any way, it was his POV violations that got me fired up in the first place, though I admit I have handled it wrong. I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you see look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. If you note, I have been more than willing to talk, albeit somewhat belligerent to other users at times, to my regret. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The CatholOzhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting oth Many of yo

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mediation, talk pages

How do you think we can help?

I would like to see OZhistory banned from editing these two pages as he is unilaterally doing the edits, and being quite rammy with his POV (apologizing and distancing any Christian actions in relation to the Nazis and the holocaust.)

Opening comments by ozhistory
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 deadbeef
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.

religious views of Adolf Hitler, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany 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.

Greengrounds, do you, as filing editor, mind if this discussion is merged into the above one, that was filed by Deadbeef? -- Nbound

Talk:List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes
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

Dispute regarding a source on an episode guide. User explained his rationale but made a pointy SPI report in an obvious attempt to get me blocked. User has a history of assuming bad faith and filing SPI reports against anyone who an edit he doesn't agree with.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to revert, but explained myself on the SPI page

How do you think we can help?

User should be advised to AGF and remember that WP can be edited by anyone in the world

Opening comments by ryulong
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. MugsWrit is a relatively brand new account editing a topic area frequented by two banned users, which raised my suspicions. There is no "history of behavior" that he is bringing up, but his "not again" here is questionable. MugsWrit is also upset that I will not allow him to use the Power Rangers fan Wikia as a reliable source for his edits.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jim1138
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:List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes 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.

David John Pearson
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

Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits: •Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson •Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total) •When I asked to go to arbitration over his approach, no action resulted from him. In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects. Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards, Andrew

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several comments in the edit talk section

How do you think we can help?

Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article?

Opening comments by Yworo
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.

As you can see Talk:David John Pearson. there has been no discussion on the talk page. Nor has there been any discussion on my talk page or the IPs talk page. IP is unaware of our preferred article structure, and keeps moving early life and education into the lead section, and has also removed all sections entirely, leaving a stub article. The IP also can't seem to tell the difference between sequential level 2 headings and nested headings, claiming that the CADES section is inside the early life section: it's not, it follows it, rather than being contained in it. Most likely the IP is the subject, and he is trying to conform the article to something his marketing team wrote. He seems to have no idea of the difference between an edit summary and a talk page, and has not engaged in any discussion whatsoever. Frankly, he should be blocked, as he keeps regressing the article to inferior forms. Sheesh. Learn how Wikipedia works before tromping all over the flowers, buddy. Yworo (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

David John Pearson 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:Justin Trudeau
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 dispute is to whether the predecessor of Justin Trudeau as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was:

1. Michael Ignatieff, or 2. Robert Rae

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have edited the page to correctly reflect the record of the party's succession. Since it was edited back, I have engaged on the discussion page with citations from the Liberal Party of Canada's constitution. In the face of repeated counter-edits without the citation of any authority, I seek a third party opinion.

How do you think we can help?

It would be meaningful for an impartial third party to do a few things:

1. Remind users not to continually edit a page without meaningfully giving authoritative reasons on the talk page where there is a dispute.

2. Invite users to say that, if they believe Robert Rae was ever the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to say when he was elected, at what convention, by how many votes, and why that election is not reflected on his own Wiki page.

3. Emphasize the importance of sourcing.

Opening comments by KBillie
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 Newfoundlander&Labradorian
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 Dbrodbeck
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 was already figured out like a month ago, I have no idea why this is here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 117Avenue
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 a trivial argument that ended over a month ago. Dispute resolution wasn't needed. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Krazytea
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 thought this was resolved a month ago already but apparently it has been brought up again? The resolution then appeared to be that since the Liberal Party of Canada lists all leaders including interim ones as leaders that they become the official leader and thus its usage by convention in the infobox. All pages use this model as do other parties such as Stéphane Dion of the Liberals and Thomas Mulcair of the New Democratic Party. Other propositions were offered up to include both but we seemed to be for the most part satisfied with current situation. Krazytea ( talk ) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by CJCurrie
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.

Talk:Justin Trudeau 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.

Capoeira
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

Unregistered member making wrong statement in the begining of the article, and backing it with an absolutely out-of-context reference.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried using the article's talk, got no answer. Can't contact other user directly, as he's an unregistered user.

How do you think we can help?

The most important thing, as the article talks about a somewhat polemic part of Brazilian culture, I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only.

Also, mediation in the "talk" section might help, although the other user failed to answer my last message.

Opening comments by 46.7.236.155
Disagreeing with someone is not making a "wrong statement." I have backed up my edits with reference to two reliable sources. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Capoeira discussion
Have you invited this member to the discussion via their talk page? The IP address should be added instead of "unregistered member" above aswell -- Nbound (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now edited the user list and invited the IP to the discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that IP editors have as much right to edit non-protected articles as the filing editor does. The statement "I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only" concerns me a little. If both parties do not continue discussion here within the next day or so, I will close this case. -- Nbound (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Before I start the discussion, I noticed this on the talk page: "OK... I'm assuming good faith, I'm assuming you really got confused, so I'll explain it.", this can come across as not assuming good faith (Imagine if someone said this to you midway though something you cared about). Im sure you didnt mean to come across that way, so just keep in mind to try and not WP:BITE the newcomers. -- Nbound (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we cant just call this a sport? Most other martial arts consider themselves sports, and can be used in real situations or for fun/training, just like Capoeira. We can call it either a sport alone, or a sport and a martial art. Most sports are formalised games, so this could be a quite apt description -- Nbound (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sports are competitive and have sets of rules. Capoeira doesn't have a ruleset or a scoring system. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's accurate. I would consider jogging to be a sport, but it is not competitive and does not have fixed rules and scoring. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, not all sports are competitive or have rules. Infact, personally, the usage of game would be more indicative of rules. Soccer is a game, jogging is not a game. They are both sports. -- Nbound (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it can be quite contentious. A similar discussion has been going on at Talk:Kendo. If your practicing something as a spiritual path it can be insulting for someone to come along and call it a sport. (There might actually be a subtile western centric bias with a word like sport.) I don't actually think there is a need to try and place Capoeira in a particular pigeon hole, just use descriptions in RS. It could be described as an art form or a game or both. A footnote in The Little Capoeira Book (page 8) say "Capoeira can be used to describe the art form or in this case a practitioner of the art form..."--Salix (talk): 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The filing editor had an issue with both (a game and a martial art), which is why I am trying to find a neutral term. Many other martial arts, which are often described as sports, also have a spiritual/philosophical element. I do agree that sport could be a biased term though, but it is also a nuanced term depending on context. Perhaps an short explanation would be in order within the lead (ie. which aspects of the broader sport term we are emphasising by the term). Similarly most people would classify Parkour as a sport, but those who practice it generally do not like the term (it isnt on the Wikipedia page), even though there are professional competitions, in what is a relatively uncompetitive sport which emphasises a philosophy of freedom from all rules. If all parties cant agree on a neutral term to explain Capoeira, I guess we would have to stick with martial art (noone disagrees with that I hope). -- Nbound (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A BBC educational page uses physical discipline. "Capoeira is a physical discipline involving movement and featuring elements from dance and the martial arts." That seems less problematic. A complete lead description should also mention the music and the fact its practiced as both a martial art and a game. (Reflecting the sections in the article). --Salix (talk): 07:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are there any further comments to be made or shall I consider the discussion stalled? -- Nbound (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like the discussion is stalled. smileguy91talk 16:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

David John Pearson
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

Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits:•Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson and should remain in the Summary.•Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total). In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects.Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and of not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Listed my response to Yworo editing comments in Talk section. No response from Yworo to this.

How do you think we can help?

Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards.

Opening comments by Yworo
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.

David John Pearson 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.

Gustave Whitehead Wiki and Talk Page
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

On the Gustave Whitehead Wikipedia page, Binksternet is accusing people (myself and one other recently) of edit warring. I am adding information to the page to maintain neutrality and provide accurate information. Binksternet and a band of cronies who have controlled this page for a long while, had placed negative, inaccurate information on the page about Gustave Whitehead, who is a contender for first in powered flight, and is increasingly being recognized as first in powered flight, in 2013, ahead of the Wright Brothers. The people who are irritated by this and controlling the page are those who are Wright enthusiasts or writers about the Wrights. I have removed negative words and inaccurate portions on occasion, have mostly added far more content with many citations. Binksternet recently had a tv producer who does history shows blocked from editing the Whitehead page, this is so inappropriate. He threatens me with being blocked whenever I add content and improve the page with more information, which it was sorely lacking.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked to Binksternet about what he is doing and asked him to stop and to recognize that I am using citations for everything I add to the article.

How do you think we can help?

Instruct Binksternet to stop trying to control the page and to allow information concerning Whitehead that has citations to be placed therein. He needs to realize that Gustave Whitehead is increasingly being recognized and not to take it personally. People have the right to know about him in an informative, not negative manner. He needs to stop threatening to get people blocked who are merely adding information. It is Binksternet who is edit warring.

Opening comments by Binksternet
This request is somewhat malformed in that the other editor identifies myself and my "cronies" as the other party. If "cronies" are to be addressed, each one should be identified individually and notified. I would be surprised to find that I have cronies—it was my impression that other experienced editors were also interested in Gustave Whitehead, but there has been no coordination or conspiring among them, as far as I know. Each editor operates on his own.

Furthermore, the other editor makes the incorrect assumption that I am a Wright brothers fanatic of some sort, a writer or historian connected to the Wright's legacy. I am not: I am a professional audio engineer who is lucky enough to get paid spending lots of time listening for flaws in audio, time which allows me to get online and edit Wikipedia as I do my job. Anybody looking at the list of articles I have started would immediately see that I am interested in the Arts, Architecture, Military History, Civil Rights, California history, the Bohemian Club and of course Audio topics. My military side is mostly the history of military aviation, which is why I have a tangential interest in general aviation history such as early aviation pioneers. One such article I worked very hard to improve is the one about the Coanda 1910 "jet" airplane. This article brought me into contact with the writings of Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith who was the world's premier doubter of Gustave Whitehead's early aviation claims. I have read each of the Gibbs-Smith books, borrowed from the local university library, and I understand he is highly regarded as an early aviation reference.

My only desire at the Whitehead article is to make certain that highly regarded sources such as Gibbs-Smith are represented with due weight. The other editor wants something else entirely: his words and actions express the wish to make the article reveal to the whole world the WP:TRUTH about Whitehead, which is whatever the less highly regarded sources say about him flying prior to the Wright brothers. I don't think Wikipedia readers would be well served to give them the impression that minor viewpoints are mainstream, and that mainstream viewpoints are wrong. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gustave Whitehead Wiki and Talk Page 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.

World War II Casualties use of India or British Raj
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties in this article, in British Commonwealth section, British India is referred as India and undivided India, In WW2 India was a colony of Britain. Known as British India and it was also undivided, India during Mughal period was also undivided but it was not involved in WW2., so I believe British India, this term is better as it was simultaneously Undivided and was involved in WW2. Off course it is my own view, but I believe It is more specific.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No.

How do you think we can help?

Sending an expert. As well as following Logic.

Opening comments by Woogie10w
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 reverted this entry by Ovsek based on the source listed below

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission uses the description "Undivided India" on page 43 The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is an official source that is reliable beyond question. They put Indian war WW2 dead at 87,000. Undivided India is the description used by theCommonwealth War Graves Commission. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia that can be verified, not the unsourced POV of Ovsek

The BBC refers to India and the Indian Army.

The bharat-rakshak.com webpage uses the description Indian Army, they wrote More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, -- --Woogie10w (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I made these two entries, I hope they will end this dispute. - --Woogie10w (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Woogie10w 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.

Pre-opening comments:

It is obvious fact that India was under British rule during WW2, known as British India, it is better to say this term.

http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/colonies_colonials_01.shtml http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/Wars/British/WW2/?g2_page=2http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/india.htm http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

Undivided India means India prior to 1947 Partition Of India under any kind of Government. India during Mughal period was also Undivided. It was not involved in WW2. British India was undivided and was also involved in WW2. The country's name was India, governed by Britain, not it's name was undivided India.Ovsek (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC also provides Indian causality number.BBC History is no doubt reliable source.Ovsek (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It is proved that Bharat Rakshak is reliable.Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_31

PRISM (surveillance program)
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

Changes to the lead by [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff], who has not participated in the discussion on the talk page regarding this issue. Very limited consensus has emerged on how to lead into this article with an NPOV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, additional references.

How do you think we can help?

Eliminate the risk of edit warring and encourage all parties to build consensus on the talk page.

Opening comments by Somedifferentstuff
There is currently a discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

PRISM (surveillance program) 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.

Bediusk Łatin
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 provided links, refs and other required things. Yet a speedy deletion thing is slappes on it ?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

By asking the admins why he slapped a Speedy deletion message on my article

How do you think we can help?

By accepting the fact I have provided references

Bediusk Łatin 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.

Tanzania
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

One user, Underlying lk, insists that gross domestic product per capita (purchasing power parity) be included in the infobox for the article Tanzania. I believe that this data should be omitted because the International Monetary Fund (IMF) used a grossly inflated divisor (estimated 2012 population instead of the 2012 census results) to calculate the data. Thus, the data is wrong and misleads readers of the article. As a compromise, I suggested that the IMF's data be included plus the quotient of GDP (purchasing power parity) divided by the census results. Underlying lk has rejected the compromise and has reverted all attempts at compromise.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion. Edit warring noticeboard (Underlying lk reported).

How do you think we can help?

Provide an impartial opinion.

Opening comments by Underlying lk
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'm not sure that this can be fairly described as a content dispute. I don't think that this matter has been discussed sufficiently, or that a solution agreeable to both me and AfricaTanz could not be found in other ways. AfricaTanz has been stonewalling much of the discussion, largely because, as I pointed out at AN/I, he can't discuss things with other users without being unpleasant. Having said that, I will accept any compromise that includes a GDP figure from a reliable source, without inappropriate personal reflections such as this.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AT's unconstructive edit is noted, @AT I'd ask you not to do that again, it doesn't help your case. I've been in that position and it didn't help me. That being said, I do think you are right to include the GDP reference in the box, it complies with the standard of how articles of countries are written, but in the spirit of trying to be fair to AfricaTanz, I do think a compromise is in order. As said before, I'm proposing that AT put something in the article's "economy" section along the lines of "Some sources doubt the accuracy of the IMF's figures..blah blah blah" as long as it's neutral and the sources he pools in are reliable. I get the feeling this is acceptable to you, so AT, is this acceptable to you too? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  03:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania 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, AfricanTanz. What specifically is your problem with in the context of article format? The reason I ask is because while you seem to have an issue with the IMF's figures, each of Tanzania's neighbouring country articles cite their own PPP's in the same way, all sources from the IMF. You may make the claim that the IMF's figures are over or underestimating the country's PPP, and you might be right (I don't know enough about the subject to say), but the IMF happens to be an (if not the) authoritative source for economic data such as GDP. Would you be open to maybe starting a section in the Economy part of the article discussing your findings with sources? It seems to me that would be a better option than just flat out cutting out a piece of info which helps make up the standard for virtually every other country article. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  00:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have not looked at the neighboring country articles. But I doubt that those countries have had a comprehensive census conducted during 2012. Just because a source is generally reliable does not mean that Wikipedia editors should blindly cite that source's data, particularly when there is good reason to believe that the data is outdated or flat wrong. Some data is common sensically wrong to any reasonable person. The mere fact that we have not yet found another reliable source saying the data is wrong does not mean the problem does not exist. People do not (or should not) leave their intelligence behind when they start editing a Wikipedia article. The notion that we should cite everything relevant from a usually reliable source, even when wrong, is just bizarre. AfricaTanz (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * AT, something as complex as economic data makes it very difficult to determine what is right or wrong. Wikipedia is not about blindly citing data, but it is about citing reliable data, and an organisation like the IMF is presumed to have figures like GDP right until another source can demonstrate otherwise. Does this mean that the IMF is right by default? No. Does it mean we shouldn't question the source? No. But the structure of the other countries' pages does suggest that per WP:Style, we should have the article best reflect the standard format. That format, from what I can see with Tanzania's neighbouring countries, is a reference from the IMF. Your claim that the data is wrong is arguable, but not set in stone. Thus, I will re-suggest that you prepare a couple of paragraphs discussing why it is wrong, with sources, and place it in the Tanzania article's economy section. You still have not indicated whether or not you're open to that idea. Are you? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some economic data is complex. The amount of a country's GDP is a classic example. But the amount of a country's GDP per capita is a simple quotient of GDP divided by population. The issue here is that the IMF's divisor (population) is clearly inflated in light of the 2012 census results. Before the census, everyone believed that Tanzania had many more people than it actually has. The census proved that everyone, including the IMF, was wrong. The census results were published after the IMF estimated per capita GDP. In light of subsequent events, the IMF estimate is flatly and unequivocally inaccurate. No one should ignore that fact and include wrong data in the article. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If the IMF had used a 100 million population divisor (more than double the census results) to calculate per capita GDP, should we use the quotient anyway in the article? Even when every Tanzania editor knows that the quotient is incorrect? Should excluding the quotient be dependent on another source actually having looked at the IMF data and published a report criticizing it (very improbable)? We choose every day what to put in articles. The mere fact that another article or even most articles has a data element does not mean that the article in question has to have it. (I have no doubt, for example, that the Burundi article includes things that the Tanzania article excludes and vice versa.) Wrong data in an article is worse than no data. That doesn't mean, as Underlying lk wrongfully and unfairly alleged, that I do not care whether a reader is wondering whether Tanzania's GDP is $1,000 or $10,000. I care very much about that, as my long and very constructive editing history in that article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this original research, though? If not, what sources can you provide to demonstrate that the IMF's figures are wrong? By that I mean sources that show this through the figures. If you are right, than you are probably not the only one to notice this. However, if you are the only one who has demonstrated this, then it is original research, and can't be included in the article anyway. And even if you are the only one who has noticed that the IMF's figures are wrong, that would make you qualified to lecture the IMF itself and editing here should be the least of your aspirations. I sympathise with your intentions, but you need legit sources that show what your claiming. What are your sources that can show that someone other than you has researched this? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  07:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm going to ask again nicely, are you open to my compromise suggestion? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  07:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Refer to the next paragraph. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The source that the IMF's divisor is wrong is http://www.nbs.go.tz/sensa/PDF/Census%20General%20Report%20-%2029%20March%202013_Combined_Final%20for%20Printing.pdf. That did not require original research on my part. The research was done by the census authorities. Wikipedia does not require editors to cite a source to omit something from an article. "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." The IMF's wrong data does not improve the Tanzania article. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not the first person to note the IMF's erroneous population figures. The IMF has grossly understated Qatar's population, resulting in a grossly inflated GDP per capita (PPP). AfricaTanz (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For Tanzania, the IMF's 2012 population estimate comes from a 7 year old estimate by Tanzania's National Statistical Office. To include the IMF GDP per capita data in the Tanzania article would require ignoring the fact that the primary source is ancient and clearly superceded by the 2012 national census. Refer to the source mentioned here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=58&pr.y=9&sy=2009&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=738&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=#cs5 Editors should not be robots. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)\


 * Hello, I am MGray98 (talk), a DRN volunteer. The original talk page was more user conduct. I would propose closing this but it seems there is already a good enough discussion here to keep it open. What needs to be addressed is not whether or not the source is 100% reliable but whether that information is useful enough to be included. I believe that no information is better than misinformation, but the important piece is the effects of the error. As EE proposed, we could include the information, and include a paragraph explaining possible errors. MGray98 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree that we should use the best figures available from a reliable source, not using the IMF figures for 2012 prevents useful comparison with other IMF figures. The IMF population figure used was 47.143 million, the Tanzania census figure was 44.929. The IMF is 4.9% larger.  In this case the issue ought to disappear in a year or less when the IMF releases its new figures. For the short term then, it seems that a compromise is appropriate. I agree with MGray98 that an explanation of the IMF figures in text or in a note would be appropriate. The figures are identified already as being IMF sourced.  Absent any other viable compromise, I endorse that offered by  EnglishEfternamn . --Bejnar (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We have a Wikipedia article tailor made for making comparisons like you described: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I second that. The error needs to be mentioned but it should be mentioned separate from the box. AT, I suggest writing up an explanation of it to be placed in the article's "Economy" section. We shouldn't just flat out omit GDP data but we should explain this unique situation, and what both me and Benjar think should be done is, in my opinion, the best way to do it. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thirdly, please refer to what I told AT at his talk page. |(1) Consensus rests largely on his decision at this point. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  19:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Content in the infobox should be data that requires no explanation. Anything requiring a context should be left out of the infobox and covered in the body with appropriate sourcing discussing any/all of the caveats. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Something as important as the country's GDP can't just be left out of the box. What do you suggest in substitution? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that Underlying lk would agree that consensus now depends solely on what I decide. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Two compromise offers are on the table, so it sort of does. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MGray98, you are the FIRST person who has understood what I am saying. Thank you for that! We editors have to pick which information from reliable sources to include in articles. Worthless information because, for instance, it is based on ancient data, should not be included regardless of how reliable the source is. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * AT, I follow you completely, and in the philosophical sense I agree with you 100%, but removing something as important as GDP opens up technical issues with the page and the box. Does your source actually say "the GDP is actually 'xyz'", or does it simply say the differences in population. This is important. If it says the first, we could perhaps put it in the infobox, but I would strongly suggest also talking about it in the economy paragraph. There is a discrepancy of info that should be discussed no matter what. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what technical issues you are referring to. Omission of something from an article does not cause any technical issue I'm aware of. Omitting something does not require an explanation in the article text. Maybe you can explain what you mean. Underlying lk has rejected omitting the data as indicative of us (me) not caring about our readers. But wrong data is worse than none, IMO. I am willing to do this: include both the IMF and World Bank figures, with a footnote explaining that the IMF figure is based on a population estimate made in 2006 instead of the 2012 census results. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The technical issue being that all articles about similar things should follow a common format, and they all cite IMF information. But because I am concerned about accuracy too, I think the issue does need to be discussed. I say let's put them BOTH in the info box and put in parenteses that the IMF figure is based on an old census as you said. The we can edit the economy section to talk about why both figures are in there. Does that sound like a plan? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  23:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added a footnote to the infobox, as suggested by AfricaTanz.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, U.Ik, AT, what do you think so far? Are we getting closer to finding a resolution? EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  00:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, EE. I added some language to the footnote to make it more obvious to our readers why it exists. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'd say pending a comment from Underlying Ik, we're just about ready to close this. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  01:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with the current version, the matter is solved for me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Race and genetics
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
 * (and other related dynamic IP addresses)
 * (and other related dynamic IP addresses)
 * (and other related dynamic IP addresses)
 * (and other related dynamic IP addresses)
 * (and other related dynamic IP addresses)

The article Race and Genetics has a subsection entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." in which Lewontin's argument is that race has ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. Followed by support and criticism from others. It included criticism by Edwards, followed by Dawkins in which he agreed with Edwards' views against Lewontin. The text in question being:

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Aprock has removed Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin six times claiming cherry picking. This is despite the fact that in the cited source Dawkins repeatedly stated Lewontin is wrong. Aprock reasoned by quoting Dawkins that race is difficult to define, in between genetic variance between races is small, and that racial classification is informative about physical characteristics. None of which counters Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin.

The argument that in between genetic variance between races is small has been acknowledged by both Edwards and Dawkins, and was already clearly stated as such in the article. In regards to Aprock reasons related to physical characteristics, I tried to address this by adding Dawkins' example of why he disagreed with Lewontin using physical characteristics which Aprock still removed again.

Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin meets WP:V and is certainly highly relevant to a section entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism.” I tried to work with Aprock in editing Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin but it seems Aprock is only interested in removal of the text regardless of what form it is in. When Aprock was given the opportunity to edit Dawkins' views on Lewontin the way he would personally want it he refuses.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed in talk for months.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully help Aprock understand why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is noteworthy in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." and work toward putting the reference back in the article.

Opening comments by Aprock
There's not much to say. We have a clear case of cherry picking. Any sane reading of the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale clearly shows that Dawkins' views on race are that it is not a generically significant attribute. That Dawkins takes issue with a literal interpretation Lewontin's work is only significant when presented in the broader context of the chapter, a suggestion which has yet to be considered by BlackHades and various like minded editors. aprock (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Devil's Advocate
I have not participated much in this dispute, but I took the time to read through the chapter as Aprock suggested and I still have to disagree with his claims of "cherry-picking" and "misrepresentation" as I expected I would. Dawkins takes a rather nuanced position, questioning the significance of the criteria we use to distinguish organisms (in fact, the name of the chapter is a reference to how different species of grasshopper are distinguished based on what would seem to be an incredibly trivial difference), but he doesn't reject these classifications like Lewontin. His position is very much that race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context. Naturally, he does not assign it the same significance as early eugenicists and does not approve of it being used in a social or cultural context, but the subject of the article is "race and genetics" not "race and culture" where such a position would be relevant. His position is straightforward that Lewontin is mistaken in characterizing race as an attribute of "virtually" no genetic significance. Dawkins is a qualified academic on the subject human genetics and noting his evaluation of the dispute seems pertinent.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ArtifexMayhem
The entire Lewontin's argument and criticism is just a coat-rack for cherry-picked material. The proposed Dawkins addition is pov pushing by omission — the pov being, as stated above, that "...race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context".

As I previously stated on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_genetics&oldid=557175857#Dawkins_quote. talk page] Dawkins makes a few other points:
 * 1) No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
 * 2) No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
 * 3) Racial classification is informative about "no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness — nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
 * 4) The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
 * 5) Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

Neither Edwards or Dawkins make the claim that race is a genetically significant attribute. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 84.61.181.253
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:Race and genetics 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 a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Dispute resolution and Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am now opening this up for discussion. Sorry for the delay; I wanted to make sure I had time to give this my full attention.
 * Possibly related pages:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
 * Human genetic clustering
 * Race and genetics
 * Race and health
 * Ethnicity and health
 * Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As stated by The Devil's Advocate, I strongly disagree on the argument of cherry picking. If you look through "The Grasshopper's Tale", Dawkins goes completely out of the way to criticize Lewontin. It's not like it's a single line that's being taking out of context. Dawkins goes into great detail to explain why Lewontin is wrong and Edwards is right repeatedly through several pages and cites specific examples. From pg 406-410 in "The Ancestor's Tale". Just like Edwards, Dawkins does agree with Lewontin in that there is more variation within racial groups than in between racial groups but Dawkins makes it very clear that Lewontin is wrong to suggest that this means race has "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance".


 * I'm more than willing and welcome the discussion on how best to summarize Dawkins criticism of Lewontin in accordance with WP:NPOV but unfortunately we're unable to even have such a discussion because of the constant attempt and assertion that Dawkins doesn't belong in the article at all. Despite the fact that Dawkins goes into such painstaking detail and highlights specific examples through several pages to explain arguments by Lewontin and Edwards. Dawkins' argument and criticism of Lewontin should belong in a subsection entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism”.


 * I would also like to note that Dawkins position on Lewontin has existed in Race and Genetics for years without dispute and currently exists in Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy without dispute. I would certainly welcome the discussion on what the most appropriate way to summarize Dawkins position on Lewontin is. But to assert that Dawkins argument on Lewontin doesn't belong in the article at all? This seems so absurd. BlackHades (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Passing by DRN volunteer here; after this came up the other day I skimread my way through The Grasshoppers Tail (Though I have read the chapter and book in its entirety previously). I mostly agree with Black Hades / The Devil's Advocate summary of the topic. Essentially Dawkin's point is that races are very similar, but also that race is an important indicator for specific traits (other than superficial exterior changes). Dawkins uses examples such as if you were to pick a running team from the fastest runners in the world, its going to almost definately be an all-african team. (Though other examples definately exist such as lactose intolerance, etc.). Just my 2c worth. I might offer some further comments on the topic at some point, but Guy Macon will be taking the lead here. -- Nbound (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break
It's worth observing here that the article is Race and genetics, not Lewontin's Fallacy. To the extent that Dawkin's views merit inclusion here, it's his views on race and genetics which are relevant not his views on a literal interpretation of Lewontin's claims. That the later is being pushed into the article without consideration of the former is a classic example of the sort of misuse of sources that was rife in WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The subsection is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism". So anything in this subsection should be specifically related to that point. If you feel Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics should be included elsewhere in the article, that would be a completely separate topic of discussion. But as far as the subsection "Lewontin's argument and criticism", only statements specifically regarding Lewontin should be in this section which includes Dawkins. There's no reason to omit Dawkins here. BlackHades (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Characterizing Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics as "a completely separate topic of discussion" is a sufficient illustration of the cherry picking that's going on. There's not really much more to discuss. aprock (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break

 * It's even more interesting than that; the majority of the trop long-distance runners come from three mountainous districts beside the Rift Valley: Nandi in Kenya, and Arsi and Shewa in Ethiopia. On the other hand, we do need to recognize that there have historically been attempts to use pseudoscience to "prove" the superiority of whichever race the "prover" belongs to. The movie "Django Unchained" has a classic example of a racist slave owner using phrenology as a pseudoscientific and self-serving justification for slavery. Obviously nobody here holds such a position, but we need to watch to make sure that such discredited ideas -- or the equally discredited idea that there are zero differences between groups of human beings -- haven't subtly influenced otherwise reliable sources.
 * Getting back to the issue at hand, let's examine the "cherry picking" claim. I always like to try to get each side to understand the other, For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? Try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank Nbound for taking the time to reread the chapter and offer his input. In regards to Guy Macon's suggestion, I would say the best reason for the position opposing mine seem to be that Dawkins' position can be misinterpreted by readers. Dawkins, along with Edwards, does agree with Lewontin that the variation within race is far greater than between races. Which is true and this is essentially universally accepted among scientists today. Humans as a species are certainly much more homogeneous than other species. The best reason for opposing the addition of Dawkins' statement appear to be the fear that this fact may get lost with readers if we highlight the small in between differences that exists. BlackHades (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Just stumbled on this. I'm an uninvolved editor that is familiar with the text in question, and I have to agree with Aprock and Artifex. The quoted material, when taken out of context as it is here presented, does overstate Dawkins' position. The disagreement between Dawkins and Lewontin is over a very fine point. They largely agree with each other. Furthermore, I, like Aprock, was a bit surprised to see this in the present article at all. The article is not about Lewontin. Last of all, a point not yet mentioned though glaringly obvious, is that there is a big problem with parity of sources. Dawkins' non-peer-reviewed popular science book is being used to challange Lewontin's peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have grave reservations about that. For me, that's a sufficient reason not to mention Dawkins' rebuttal at all, regardless of his reputation. That clearly violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Criticism of peer-reviewed sources must absolutely come from peer-reviewed sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your arguments appear to disagree with wikipedia policies. WP:PRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors...Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources"


 * Dawkins is a reliable secondary source for the primary source of Lewontin. Wikipedia is suppose to focus on secondary sources over primary sources.
 * In regards to WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL, this seems to be an assertion that Dawkins and Edwards is the minority position which is not accurate. Support of Edwards' position is quite mainstream. From both peer reviewed sources and secondary sources. BlackHades (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please reread the chapter from which you are quoting. Dawkins clearly states: "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." (pg. 406)  aprock (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which view on race? In regards to Lewontin's argument that within race variation is higher than between race variation? Yes. That humans as a species are far more homogeneous than other species? Also yes. That race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance? Absolutely NOT. This specific point by Lewontin is heavily refuted in the scientific fields. Not just by Edwards and Dawkins. In fact there's an entire scientific field today based around how wrong Lewontin was on this point. Which is the scientific field of Race and medicine.


 * "Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported."--Foster, Morris W., and Richard R. Sharp. "Race, ethnicity, and genomics: social classifications as proxies of biological heterogeneity." Genome Research 12.6 (2002): 844-850. BlackHades (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Which view on race?" Again, you are free to read the book referenced. At this juncture, you appear to be saying that Dawkins is a fine source for content you agree with, but when it comes to content that you don't agree with you bring a handful of older sources.  I assume you can see the inconsistency here. aprock (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Still with the straw man arguments? First, I didn't even mention Lewontin in regards to scientific mainstream in the post you responded to. Who knows why you brought him up other than you. You appear to have extreme difficulty responding to my actual points as you continuously time and time again ignore my points and respond back to imaginary things I never ever stated instead. (e.g. I explain Edwards is mainstream and instead of responding back about Edwards, you talk about Lewontin instead).
 * Secondly, talk about cherry picking Dawkins. I don't think you can accuse anyone of cherry picking after this. Dawkins is not stating that Lewontin's ENTIRE view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. Unless you want to make the ridiculous claim that Dawkins is admitting to being outside the scientific circles and accusing Edwards of being outside of it as well. Are you really making this claim? Most and nearly all of Lewontin's views on race is mainstream but Dawkins picks out the one point by Lewontin that isn't and explains why. By the way, claiming that I don't agree with Dawkins is another straw man argument. You are free to read the book referenced. BlackHades (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is quite clear in his book about what he refers to as Lewontin's view. Do the sources you list even mention Lewontin?  You appear to be confusing yourself here. aprock (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Dawkins is quite clear and somehow you still don't seem to get it. BlackHades (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

break
Well, this is interesting. So far we have the following opinions:

Keep Dawkins in:

BlackHades

The Devil's Advocate

Nbound (not previously involved)

Kick Dawkins out:

Aprock

ArtifexMayhem

Dominus Vobisdu (not previously involved)

Neutral: Guy Macon

I am going to ask again that everyone try an experiment. For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong?

Please try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener, plus, we all get to mock anyome who refuses to get with the program. (Note to the humor impared: that was a joke). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

break

 * As it concerns the claims of cherry-picking I think the best example of cherry-picking is the opening statement by ArtifexMayhem. He is cherry-picking Dawkins to make Dawkins say what he wishes Dawkins had said. It is true that Dawkins says "no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are", but here is the full context:


 * "Above the species level, a genus is just a group of species that are pretty similar to each other. No objective criterion exists to decide how similar they have to be, and the same is true of all the higher levels: family, order, class, phylum and the various ‘sub-’ or ‘super-’ names that intervene between them. Below the species level, ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are used more or less interchangeably and, again, no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are."


 * In other words, he says no objective criteria exist for any of the classifications other than species classifications, but he also says this about species:


 * "Biologists normally classify animals that mate under artificial conditions but refuse to mate in the wild as separate species, as has happened with the grasshoppers. But unlike, say, lions and tigers, which can hybridise in zoos to make (sterile) ‘ligers’ and ‘tigrons’, those grasshoppers look identical. Apparently the only difference is in their songs. And it is this, and only this, that stops them crossbreeding and therefore leads us to recognise them as separate species."


 * He subsequently relates this to humans:


 * "If Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus are separated as two distinct species of grasshoppers because they prefer not to interbreed although they physically could, might humans, at least in ancient times of tribal exclusivity, once have been separable in the same kind of way? Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus, remember, in all detectable respects except their song, are identical, and when they are (easily) persuaded to hybridise their offspring are fully fertile."


 * So he also casts serious doubt on the objective criteria used to distinguish species, suggesting that human populations could have been categorized as separate species at one point. To note his statement about there not being objective criteria to distinguish races as though it shows him saying race is not a genetically significant attribute is blatant cherry-picking. It does not end there as the quote about "superficial differences" is also cherry-picked from this quote:


 * "We are indeed a very uniform species if you count the totality of genes, or if you take a truly random sample of genes; but perhaps there are special reasons for a disproportionate amount of variation in those very genes that make it easy for us to notice variation, and to distinguish our own kind from others. This would include the genes responsible for externally visible ‘labels’ like skin colour. Yet again, I want to suggest that this heightened discriminability has evolved by sexual selection, specifically in humans because we are such a culture-bound species. Because our mating decisions are so heavily influenced by cultural tradition, and because our cultures, and sometimes our religions, encourage us to discriminate against outsiders, especially in choosing mates, those superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us."


 * He follows it up with this:


 * "I want to consider two versions of this theory: a strong and a weak one. The truth could be any combination of the two. The strong theory suggests that skin colour, and other conspicuous genetic badges, evolved actively as discriminators in choosing mates. The weak theory, which can be thought of as leading into the strong version, places cultural differences, such as language and religion, in the same role as geographical separation in the incipient stages of speciation. Once cultural differences have achieved this initial separation, with the consequence that there is no gene flow to hold them together, the groups would subsequently evolve apart genetically, as if geographically separated."


 * This hardly suggests a view of race as not being a genetically significant attribute.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The above is a spirited defense of the "yes, there is cherry picking" position, and is well worth discussing, but I cannot help wondering how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree. (I am not picking on you in particular; I am asking everyone this). Clearly you are talking past each other. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? Please consider answering the questions I asked above. I do have a fair amount of experience helping people to resolve disputes, and I am asking you and everyone else here to try something new. Repeating the same arguments that failed to resolve the dispute on the article talk page is unlikely to have a different outcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused. I was rebutting the claim of cherry-picking made by Artifex, Aprock, and Dominus. Artifex was, oddly enough, cherry-picking Dawkins to back up his claim that others were cherry-picking Dawkins.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not confused at all. I specifically asked you to attempt to refute the the claim of no cherry-picking made by BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate, and Nbound, but instead you attempted to refute the claim of cherry-picking made by Aprock, ArtifexMayhem, and Dominus Vobisdu.


 * The whole point of the dispute resolution noticeboard is to try something different from what failed to work on the article talk page. What you have here is a neutral party who is trying to guide the discussion to a solution. Those editors who ignore the dispute resolution volunteers requests give the appearance of being one of the reasons why this was not settled on the article talk page. Those editors who make a good-faith effort to read, understand, and follow the requests made by the dispute resolution volunteer -- or at the very least explain why they think the request is stupid -- give the appearance of working towards a resolution of the dispute.


 * So, once again I ask (and will keep asking) how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree with you. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? It's a fair question; why the refusal to answer it?


 * And once again I am asking you (and everyone else) to write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are" and to post it here without any criticism or rebuttal of any kind. Clearly you are talking past each other. Please don't repeat that behavior with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy, are you asking us to "write for the opposition"? Sorry, but it's late here and my brain is having trouble parsing the syntax. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what he's asking. Which I already did above. Guy says this is to understand the other side better which will help this come to a resolution. I thought it was a good idea but unfortunately no one else seemed willing to partake in it yet. BlackHades (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am asking you to write for the opposition. The problem we have here is that both sides appear to be 100% certain that they have compelling arguments and that the other side has nothing. I say that both sides have reasonable arguments that are simply not getting through. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

24-hour closing proposal: I'm yet another DRN volunteer. Has everyone decided to back out of this dispute? I see there's been no new discussion at the article or article talk page since May 24 and none here in the last three days. Are you done? Unless someone says they're still interested — preferably by posting a response complying with Guy Macon's last request, above, though just a note of continued interest will do — I or some other volunteer will close this as stale after 17:00 June 7, 2013 (UTC), slightly more than 24 hours from now. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Artifex and I responded just several hours ago above. I'll move the comments down here. BlackHades (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The topic of Dawkins' chapter is race and genentics. Any rewrite which places Dawkin's critique of Lewontin without giving a fuller treatment of the chapter in general is still going to have substantial problems with WP:UNDUE.  aprock (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

break

 * "Here is what I think the best reasons for believing that there has not been any cherry-picking":
 * Given the fact that the section is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism.", including Dawkins should not be a problem.
 * Dawkins makes it clear that he disagrees with Lewontin's claim that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'...
 * a. "But that doesn't mean that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'.
 * b. "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be ... they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
 * c. "In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."
 * Therefore, including Dawkins' view, that race is a genetically significant attribute, is not cherry-picking.
 * As requested. I think. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Artifex, are you against including Dawkins under any circumstances or would you be open to a rewrite? If you're open to a rewrite, we could include more points by Lewontin that Dawkins does agree with. It is true that Dawkins does agree with Lewontin for the most part despite his key objection on one particular aspect. Perhaps we could make a rewrite to better highlight the points that Dawkins does agree with Lewontin on, along with the objection that he has. If this sounds acceptable, I will start working on creating a rewrite. Let me know. Thanks. BlackHades (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The DR:N labels this as needed a volunteer but you all have Guy Macon on the job and it seems you've found traction. Should the re-write plan pan out and you need input for consensus on that, I've read through the dispute and could be one more voice. Otherwise, going to update you're in good hands. Good luck. EBY (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your input will be welcome. BlackHades (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a procedural note: (I'm good at these, at least when I get them right.) Disputes have a two-week life here at DRN. After that, the archive bot will automatically close and archive them if there's no new addition to the thread within any 24 hour period on the theory that disputes which are so complicated that they cannot be resolved within 2 weeks really either need to keep moving or move along to RFC or MedCom. Since there does seem to be some progress being made here, I've gone ahead and extended the life on this case to three weeks (until 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) to be precise), but everyone needs to keep that in mind. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks TM. I think I'll just go ahead and start working on the rewrite while I wait for Artifex's response. I hope Artifex will be okay with that. Pg 406-407 is where Dawkins highlights which point by Lewontin he agrees with and which point he doesn't so I'll try to make a rewrite that centers around this. BlackHades (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was simply responding to Guy's request. Regardless...No, I'm not against including Dawkins under any circumstances but I don't see any right now. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a little more? When you say "don't see any right now", are you saying you haven't seen a version yet that you deem acceptable or are you saying you're unable to even fathom any version you would possibly deem acceptable? My request above for a rewrite, would this be acceptable or not? BlackHades (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that cryptic (real life as been nuts lately)...Yes, propose a rewrite. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to rush you folks, but there has been very little activity and a long time between comments and replies. I am trying to judge whether I should mark this as failed and move on to discussing what the next step in dispute resolution is if DRN can not resolve the diispute. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been putting a lot of effort into trying to make this work but I'm starting to agree with you. I did start working on another rewrite but Artifex's response makes it sound like he's unwilling to accept anything I write. And Aprock obviously clearly won't as he's been unwilling to even create his own version repeatedly. It just appears to be an effort to block/impede relevant WP:V material that they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. BlackHades (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Let me outdent this and discuss the next step.

So, the first two methods in the chain of steps listed at WP:DR seem to have failed to resolve the conflict. As usual, I am not offering an opinion as to why this is who is right. The next step would seem to be an WP:RFC. Write up a request for comments, post it and advertise it. If you want to start with a draft version in userspace, I will be happy to go over it and comment on the clarity and structure and where I think you should advertise the RfC. Please note that, unlike DRN or talk page discussions, an RfC can resolve the conflict even if some of those involved do not participate. Once you have the RfC closer saying that the results are to keep the material in or keep it out, whichever of you loses has to accept the result or (after a couple of warnings) be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help and suggestions Guy. Since Artifex has now stated he's open to a rewrite, I'll put the RfC on hold for now and go back on working on the rewrite again and hopefully come up with something that will be satisfactory for everyone. I initially misinterpreted Artifex's comment and I'd like to apologize for that. I should have a rewrite ready by tomorrow. BlackHades (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the rewrite. Page 406-407 is where Dawkins specifically states the lines by Lewontin he agrees with and the lines he disagrees with. So I made this rewrite to center around this. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?


 * Richard Dawkins 2005 agreed with Edwards' view. Dawkins accepted Lewontin's position that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is a biased perception and that human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. But Dawkins disagreed with Lewontin that this means race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' and summarized Edwards' point that however small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.
 * BlackHades (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that I can do to be of assistance? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can give your thoughts on the rewrite. :) BlackHades (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Page 406-407 is where Dawkins ..." This is precisely the problem.  The entire chapter speaks directly to the article topic.  Selecting only a fragment of the chapter which highlights a point that you find interesting is not neutral editing.  Until you can incorporate the full content of the chapter, I'm afraid that including favored content is a violation of WP:NPOV. aprock (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. The entire chapter does not speak directly on the topic. The topic is Lewontin's argument and criticism. If you want to include Dawkins elsewhere in the article, that is a completely different topic of discussion. What you're asking for is to put completely irrelevant material in regards to Lewontin's argument and criticism into Lewontin's argument and criticism. I'm afraid that's not possible. Pg 406-407 is the only section of the entire book where Dawkins points out the very specific lines by Lewontin that he agrees with and disagrees with. BlackHades (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an accurate presentation of Dawkins' overall position on Lewontin. But if you honestly believe this isn't accurately representing Dawkins' views on Lewontin, I would again encourage you to write a version you deem appropriate. Could you explain why this is not possible or why you're so unwilling? BlackHades (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article does not change simply because a section has a fictional title that primarily exists to serve as a coat rack for fringe and undue claims. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which text in "Lewontin's argument and criticism" are you claiming is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE? You only ever bring this up when the issue of Dawkins comes up. You've never mentioned this before or after the removal of Dawkins' position in the section in regards to anything else. The section exists because Lewontin was the one to set forth the now widely accepted scientific position that genetic variation within races is larger than between races. You don't consider this a noteworthy topic of discussion in Race and Genetics? And if the argument is for Dawkins' broader views on race, I don't know why you would stop at just the one chapter of "The Grasshopper's Tale". Why not the entire book then? Heck why not include the summary of Dawkins other books as well since the argument is that the subject matter of a section's title should hold absolutely no weight to what text should belong there. BlackHades (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't give my thoughts on the rewrite, because my role is a neutral mediator/referee. (there are cases where one side just plain refuses to follow our rules and I have to tell them that, but this case is clearly one where everyone wants to follow the rules and improve the encyclopedia, but disagree as to how best to do that).
 * The comments on what Dawkins "really" meant aside, I do think that this sort of addition would be excessive and the current section on Lewontin seems similarly overdone. It is the biggest section on the page and thus probably overstates its importance to the subject. Reducing it all to a short one or two paragraph summary would probably be more suitable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

break
Here is an idea I want to throw out: How about taking the specific issue above to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and seeking a second opinion? No need to stop working on it here or on the article talk page, but it might be helpful to get another set of eyes looking at the NPOV question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that end up similar to here? With Aprock claiming it's not NPOV and me stating it is NPOV? Along with statements by The Devil's Advocate and ArtifexMayhem similar to ones that they've already expressed here. Or should we simply pose the question without comments by previously involved editors and make it strictly for uninvolved editors? BlackHades (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it would not be the same as here. Here at DRN, there are basically the two or three of you and a neutral mediator who refuses to take sides unless someone is committing a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. At the NPOV noticeboard, there will be the two or three of you and several uninvolved editors with a keen interest in determining whether something is or is not NPOV. If you go there and two or three independent voices tell you that one on you is wrong, I expect whichever of you was wrong to come back here and graciously accept that determination. Which of course will not be a problem; as I said, what we have here are editors who disagree, not someone who is WP:NOTHERE. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll go back to moving this to RfC. That seems like the best option at this point. Thank you for all your help with this mediation. BlackHades (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I will look it over and possibly make suggestions later. I would point out to the other participants that giving BlackHades advice on the wording of the RfC is encouraged; it can be difficult to describe a position you disagree with without bias creeping in, and input from those who hold that position can be helpful. An unbiased description of both positions benefits everyone. The final decision on wording lies with the person who writes up the RfC, but with the best RfCs you cannot tell which side wrote it until they post their arguments among the rest of the comments.
 * Anyone can look at my current draft of the RfC here. I tried my best to word it as neutral as possible. I welcome input and suggestions for improvement. I plan to start the RfC soon. BlackHades (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless someone objects, I am going to close this case in 24 hours. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am closing this as "failed". In my opinion this is nobody's fault, and the participants in this discussion made a good-faith effort to resolve this with nobody showing any behavior problems. Good luck with your RfC! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)