Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 79

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A user (Zoltan Bukovszky) insists that the personal titles of various people be included in lists of state leaders. I have contended that this information constitutes biographical information which is beyond the scope of the articles, as well as being confusing and making some parts of the list difficult to read. Other user ignores my points and continues belligerent reverts of my edits.

Issue has carried over into "List of current heads of state and government" and more recently flared up again in "List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office Recent edits on List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence User talk:Farolif Forgot abt this discussion, too - in which Zoltan admitted that the personal titles are unnecessary as well ("...they are prime minister or emir nevertheless..."). This is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding, at the very least) of what I said there, as the point I was making was that the inclusion of titles creates no confusion - contrary to your claim. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Explain scope and stay on topic to other user.

Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Farolif came up with the idea that the inclusion of 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh' in front of people's names is 'irrelevant', 'confusing', 'out of scope' or 'biographical information' and mass-deleted them from the article. He is ignoring the fact that this is how those people are routinely mentioned in the UN list of heads of state and government (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf), the countries' government webpages and most Google searches for their names. And he keeps mass reverting it whenever I restore them. If that is the way those people are called than - in my opinion - it cannot be regarded either as irrelevant or out of scope, it isn't confusing since the names are links to the articles about them, and as for the 'biographical information' argument since these titles are used as part of the names, it's completely dissimilar to their date of birth being being put put next to the name, for instance. Therefore to me Farolif's staunch determination to to delete them constitue an unreasonable loss of valid and relevant encyclopedic content. ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Nobody is asking to see the UN protocol list or the respective leaders' government websites. ZBukov seems to be mixing up "names" with *forms of address*, the latter of which includes titles, while "names" do not. Also, every instance of a personal title used on these pages requires a separate Wikilink to direct someone to the article about the person (ex. - Sir Frederick Ballantyne|Frederick Ballantyne) - which is not the same thing as Zbukov's claim that "the names are links to the articles about them". Farolif (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Nobody is asking to see"? What kind of argument is this? :) If the Governor-General of Saint Lucia is Dame Pearlette Louisy (as evidenced by the above and many other sources like www.rulers.org, www.worldstatesmen.org, the London Gazette (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/56198/notices/1002/all=pearlette+louisy), Archontology (http://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php) rendering the fact undisputed) then why would your unacknowledged personal dislike or some unexplained, nonexistent confusion be relevant enough to say otherwise (only wishing to see Pearlette Louisy)? And what is this argument about requiring a separate Wikilink? They were there, before you started painstakingly deleting them! ZBukov (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think I was deleting the Wikilinks; they've been intact through this whole ordeal. The name of the GG of St. Lucia is Pearlette Louisy, who is also styled as 'Dame'. The rest of your diatribe is sheer speculation and assumption that these various external sources apply to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to have to diappoint you, but 'Dame' and the other words in question are not styles, in the Dame Pearlette's case her style is 'Her Excellency' which no-one wants to put into these articles - but that's merely a side-note. So to stick to the Saint Lucia case, all of the following sources name the Governor-General of Saint Lucia as 'Dame Pearlette Louisy': the Government of Saint Lucia (http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/profile/her-excellency-dame-pearlette-louisy), the United Nations, http://www.rulers.org/ruls1.html#saint_lucia, http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Lucia.htmlhttp://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php, to name the most evident ones. So you are saying that all this is irrelevant, right? And you have still failed to explain the confusion which you think this might cause. Would you please be so kind as to finally expound? ZBukov (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in the case of the List of current heads of state and government, a person could read the office as "Governor-General Dame" if you leave her title dangling on. And her 'Dame' title is shown on her WP article, which does not require same title to link to it - Pearlette Louisy - therefore nullifying all of your myriad sources as being critical to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If this is the confusion you fear than please rename the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to prevent people from thinking that "Prime Minister Sheikh" is a title... It doesn't seem reasonable to hide facts to make up for a lack of minimal intelligence and/or knowledge about the topic one is reading about: moving the mouse over the link reveals in an instant that 'Governor-General' and 'Dame Pearlette Louisy' are links to two separate Wikipedia articles and the boundary between them is not between the words 'Dame' and 'Pearlette'... And anyway this argument is only applicable to one of the two articles from which you keep mass-deleting information, as the names and positions aren't right next to each other in the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office article. I'm relieved to note that you appear to have stopped deleting information from this latter article. ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * So now you suggest a task (changing another person's name) that is not only unnecessary here, but totally beyond the control of a WP editor. Brilliant; or, to borrow one of your phrases - "What kind of argument is this?" Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the titles so that a reader's mind is not required to be constantly flipping between "title", "not a title", "title", "not a title", etc? And you're also assuming that everyone who reads a Wikipedia article actually has a mouse to "mouse over" a line and read the preview bar (which they also might not have on whatever device they're using). Though I'm glad to hear I've given some respite to your life by my self-imposed moratorium on editing the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office page - on which, by the way, you are so far the singular minority in favor of keeping the titles. Farolif (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The rhetorical device I used in calling on you to rename Sheikh Hasina is called irony. The two people possibly in point, your sole ammunition for the 'confusion' claim, are Sheikh Hasina and Prince Johnson (I can't think of any other off the top of my head). Sheikh and prince are universally known words as titles, and I believe an incomparably smaller percentage of humanity will be erudite enough to be aware of these as being names in some cultures. Therefore even with the titles omitted from the article, most people will perceive them to be a person named Hasina and titled Sheikh, and one called Johnson of royal heritage. So you will hardly be able to prevent the 'constant flipping' of their minds... And as I said, if the reader is interested, they can always visit the relevant article for more information. As for the talk page and the question of minority, there was a single other person contributing to the debate between yourself and me, and he opined in favour of keeping the titles but deleting the Sirs and Dames, so that was a 'yes' and a 'no' to both of us. Interpreting that as supporting your side sounds like desperate cherry-picking. But your self-imposed moratorium is laudable regardless whether it resulted from seeing the untenability of the 'confusion' claim in light of the article's format, or from fatigue. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that still wasn't irony. Irony would have been if through some great feat I successfully changed Sheikh Hasina's name, and the new name still caused confusion to people, or did not achieve the initial goal of satisfying the person who charged me with such a task. You are also ignoring the opposite problem caused by recognizing "Sheikh" and "Prince" as names - including them as titles can confuse some people to think that Khalifa's first name is "Prince", or Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani's first name is "Sheikh". True, there's no way to phrase a foreign name so that every single person will read it as only a name 100% of the time and not interpret part of it as a title. I suppose we should be thankful no state leaders are named "Don" or "Duke", although we do have currently have a "Baron" :o. But I would say it drastically reduces the chances of such confusion when we don't mix the two by having "Sheikh"s as person's titles in the same list as people with the name "Sheikh".
 * The only desperation here is from the person dredging up UN protocol lists time and time again along with multiple external sources without explaining how any of it helps the article or resolve the issue at hand, the person trying to explain how a reader can avoid confusion by using technical means they might not have at their disposal, the person trying to discredit their opponent by pointing out alternate definitions of their opponent's word-choice. And the only fatigue I feel comes from dealing with a person who persistently proves themselves incapable of thinking critically about a problem. Farolif (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, the President of Nauru is also a case in point. It's worrisome if you have no idea how or why sources are relevant here. Anyway. Would anyone else care to give an opinion? ZBukov (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, if anyone could explain why a reader would expect to see the personal titles of leaders on these pages in question, I'd appreciate their insight. Farolif (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with DRN but I have strong doubts this is what is meant by  'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary'  or  'Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page' . I would note despite this lengthy discussion, there is still no opening statement by Farolif. If this was intended to be such it was presented wrongly, which of course probably isn't a good reason to have a long discussion involving only extant editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with DRN but I have strong doubts this is what is meant by  'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary'  or  'Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page' . I would note despite this lengthy discussion, there is still no opening statement by Farolif. If this was intended to be such it was presented wrongly, which of course probably isn't a good reason to have a long discussion involving only extant editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, it seems discussion has been rather quiet here. Is this still in need of assistance? If so, please let us know ASAP. Steven Zhang (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll speak up to say it still does need assistance. I, for one, just got tired of repeating the same points over and over again without either Zoltan's properly addressing them nor any volunteer involvement. Farolif (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people
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

2 issues. First is the wording of a sentence in the lead. Second is about adding or removing information in the "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. Based on journal articles (5 of em here) and other ones like, and on secondary sources  (very reliable ), I have suggested a compromise wording here. However, other editors suggested adding UNSOURCED statements not backed by any of studies. So, the first issue is what this sentence in the lead should be: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Second issue is adding these relevant reliably sourced material (or similar wording) in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. 

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talks here: Talk:Turkish people. Most recent discussion is here: Talk:Turkish_people

How do you think we can help?

Offer us an opinion with respect to Wiki policies, especially Verifiability and OR

Summary of dispute by Yalens
First of all I’d say the key to this for me is sources. At the moment right now the side in favor of mentioning Turkish people primarily descend from natives that the invaders assimilated has a host sources on its side. However, various editors, as some have openly stated on the talk page, disagree with the theory and at least one thinks it is a nationalist concoction (I don’t buy this: Turkish nationalism actually prefers descent from Central Asians- exactly what is being refuted by this study- and not only are the sources varied but the author of one of the studies is Armenian, thus for obvious reasons unlikely to be trying to support that ideology, but whatever).

It’s been claimed that the sources are “controversial”. For the most part, they are actually quite usable academic sources and I have yet to see sources criticizing any of them with regards to this topic. They have also brought up two sources that supposedly “tell a different story”, but neither actually counters the theory. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the studies are “cherrypicked”. I don’t buy this either, as genetic studies are not (yet) huge in number, and the bulk of studies on Turks that cover this topic are already included. They still haven’t produced a paper refuting the elite dominance-cultural assimilation theory.

With all that having been said, some of the complaints are actually legitimate in my mind. For example, the mass inclusion of heavily cited material in the lead. I think compromise is possible, and most editors from both sides have made attempts at this. But the discussion often gets caught up in logistics and attempts to negotiate the whole page at once. There’s also a tendency to argue about things that both sides actually agree on. I personally support compromises such as this one ([]. --Yalens (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Proudbolsahye
First off, the way this dispute was filed through this DRN is unacceptable on the grounds that alternative propositions are nowhere to be found in the Dispute overview. I don't feel that the dispute in its entirety is properly addressed and the nomination in itself promotes one side of the argument. If this is how this issue is attempted to be "resolved" and if the Dispute overview is worded in this manner, I highly doubt the resolution board will reach any plausible conclusion. In addition to this, you claim without any sort of context, that I proposed leaving the sentence unsourced, which I felt as a sort of attack against me with the caps locks. On the other hand, I specifically pointed out that WP:WHYCITE suggests that sources in the lead are often discouraged, which leaves us to do some explaining in regards to individual genetic studies and their conclusions in another part of the article. Regardless of that fact, I am not going to contribute to such a noticeboard until ALL viewpoints and propositions are properly addressed in the Dispute overview. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Athenean
Rather than a problem of "sources vs. no sources", as Cavann puts it, the issue here is that sources are being misused and misinterpreted, as well as WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources provided by Cavann do not actually back the very strongly nativist wording that he suggests (see the last sentence of the removed part). Another problem is the repetition of the same material throughout the article for effect, for example a sentence that is clearly about genetics in the history section (see previous diff). Some sources, such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are controversial, yet they are inserted multiple times throughout the article, including the lede. Cavann insists on a very strong wording, that the modern Turkish population are the direct, lineal descendants of Bronze Ages populations, even though the literature is in agreement that the demographic and genetic history of the Anatolian landbridge is extraordinarily complex and the situation is not that clear and simple. There is a lot of WP:IDHT in the talkpage, which makes this issue very hard to resolve. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TU-nor
I'm out traveling with only sporadic Internet connection, so I will not take much part in this discussion. Just a comment: My concern has been to try to find some middle ground. I suggested striking out one word, and the response from some editors was: Yes, we like this. Someone else said that it made things even worse. To meet this last response, I thereafter suggested to change one word. The response (from one of the editors that liked my first suggestion) was that this was completely unacceptable. With that kind of reactions, there is not much hope of building a consensus. I'll come back to this discussion if I can, but if not, I just hope that some of the editors take a short pause to try to understand what the other editors are saying. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Antidiskriminator
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't think the dispute has been presented in an objective and neutral manner by editor who filed it here. Its not about well sourced compromise vs. unsourced position of other editors. It would be against WP:NPOV to give undue weight to some controversial genetic studies by presenting them in the lede. This edit (diff) explains why. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the above link I pointed to 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley which explains why it is (still) impossible to support extraordinary claims about the past of the modern social constructions like nations with genetic studies of the past:
 * Genetic studies of the past are controversial ("Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...")
 * Genetic studies of the past have circular reasoning issue because they contradict themselves.
 * They first emphasized that there is no scientific basis for the concept of the nationality (races...) and that genetic differences between people within the same nationality are bigger than between different nationalities.
 * Then they used "social constructions" like nations to make conclusions beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised.
 * It is obvious that compromise proposal has not been accepted so the "Thracian Turks" hypothesis should not be presented in the lede of this article but in its genetics section and (if it is really important and notable) in separate article about Genetic Studies on Turkish People like in case of genetic studies of Arabs, Jews, Serbs, Sinhalese or Sri Lankan Tamils.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yerevanci
Antidiskriminator makes a very good point. I'd like to add that Cavann does not provide the alternative arguments or proposals that Athenean and Proudbolsahye put forth. This looks like another attempt by him to push his POV. All the sources that he gives to back up the theory that modern Turks primarily descend from Ancient Anatolians are problematic (e.g. that author of a few sources has been involved in several controversies). That theory is only supported by selective articles, which we generally call WP:CHERRYPICKING. Athenean's proposal is much more balanced and better reflects the situation without favoring one conclusion of the study of another. More importantly, this discussion will get us nowhere with such a dispute overview as this one. -- Ե րևանցի talk  23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
I've tried to make a number of specific proposals concerning several sections of the article. What's disruptive in this case and I've noticed that very soon, is the extreme wp:own activity by Cavann. Endlessly reverting various edits by other users, even ones that finally accepts as reasonable (like the Hittite map case in Prehistory section, although after a couple of rvs). In general I agree with Athenean's proposal, since the present form of the article suffers from wp:synth and wp:or, especially the introductory parts need to be fixed in order to get rid of conclusions that are not based on reliable material.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither taking nor opening this filing for discussion at this time, but want to comment about the objections that this is not properly filed. If you feel that the issues were not properly presented by the listing editor, you have (at least) two choices: (1) If you feel that dispute resolution would be helpful you can set out what you feel the proper issues should be and a volunteer will consider expanding the listing or (2) you can simply decline to participate here (participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory). Merely objecting to the way the listing editor presented the matter will be taken to be #2 unless you do #1, and if significant participants in the dispute decline to participate then this request will probably be closed. Remember that DRN isn't a courtroom that will make a binding judgment, but is only a forum for assistance with negotiation and/or neutral third party nonbinding evaluation, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Antidiscriminator's response perfectly exemplifies why we need mediation. S/he seems to think some random comment by Pamela Kyle Crossley (who is a historian) invalidates all reliable life-sciences sources, such as Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's books and newer journal articles. That is why we need assistance with respect to WP:verifiability and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Cavann (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I should also say I liked TU-nor's compromise offer. Cavann (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this still need our assistance? Steven Zhang (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does.Cavann (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bump so this doesn't get archived. Cavann (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who still objects to adding historical material to Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages section? Kevin  (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's re-adding the stuff I removed, then yes. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok then, we definitely need your assistance, Steven Zhang. Thanks. Kevin  (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

An editor feels that an article is too long and that it should be broken up. This editor has begun to brake the article up. The Article has been through and passed GA and FA review and discussion concluded that it should stay as is, but the editor thinks there was another conclusion. I asked for help using the "help me" template to find out how to get help, and the editor reversed the template twice. I would like some experienced intervention to settle the dispute as I do not want to participate in an edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

mediation to settle the dispute: does the article really need to be broken up or can we let the FA review stand?

Summary of dispute by Technical 13
The bulk of my opinions of this article are on the article talk page. I think that it is too full of intricate details not pertaining directly to the topic that are better suited in spin-off articles. Some of the spin-off articles that would be supporting this topic already exist, and those articles should be utilized. I'm not sure how the heck this article made it through GA and FA status and due to the issues with the article and the fact that this article is now unstable, I've nominated it for a FAR review. 19:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

As far as I can see, leaving aside the conduct issues, the dispute is over whether the page should have a lengthy description of each locomotive, including locomotives which are no longer at the site.

I added my opinion to the talk page, I think originally because of a "help me" template, and expanded on it later; the edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASteamtown%2C_U.S.A.&action=historysubmit&diff=575070851&oldid=575036498 summarises how I feel about the situation. I have not edited the page itself. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Oanabay04
The article is too detailed, written in essay format and needs to be shorter by having the excessive detail placed in separate articles.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Begoon
All of the content related discussion is on the article talkpage. I have nothing content related I feel I can add to that, and have removed the conduct related comments I initially made here, which had not been replied to. Apologies for posting out of process comments here, in my anger at the situation. I wish you well with the resolution. Begoon &thinsp; talk 15:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Just to clarify something that Pinkbeast referred to: None of the locomotives are currently at the site. The place no longer exists. The article is about a train excursion/museum that was once in VT. It moved to PA and was then nationalized. This article is about the history of and the collection at the Vermont location. The last time I checked there is a Ben and Jerry's ice cream plant at the location. To take out the summaries of the pieces in the collection would be to take out half of the point of the article. They are actually short summaries, not lengthy, in my opinion, and are too short to make articles of their own. I, personally, cannot see them in any other way but as part of longer articles. Since the thing that each one has in common is that they were all once part of the collection on which the article is written, I think that they should be included in this particular article.
 * The article has been put up for FA review by Technical 13, since this dispute resolution was requested. It is already an FA.  I believe that since the article is in dispute it will be rejected by FA.  I do not believe that FA review will settle the dispute, I believe it will escalate things, actually.  I do not understand why that measure was taken.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Couple points. DRN is not binding, nor is it mediation. The only real power a volunteer has is to help both sides look for a workable compromise that all can live with. Noting that I'm seeing appeals to emotion from one side and logic from another. I do concur that the lead is slightly wordy, but the length is not burdensome nor is overly long compared to other Featured Articles. I observe that there's been some suggestions about how to improve the article to ameliorate the concerns. , can you agree that the lead is too long in it's current state, the listing of current stock is duplicated from the sub-articles and commit to attempting to trim it down? / Can you agree to give Ishtar456 time to work on reducing the verbose descriptions of stock related to the site? Hasteur (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with allowing time to trim it down, and actually I was attempting to help with that myself until I was reverted. Technical 13 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pending any significant objections I'm going to close this in 24 hours as failed with "Discussion has gone stale and filer not responding to suggestion". Hasteur (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri
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 claim that this image is significant for this article, because this is a historical image on the postcard of the Russian Empire. Anonymous user 188.255.44.254 gives different absurd arguments against this image. First, he said that this photo is not significant. Then he claimed that this postcard is a fake and is an Azerbaijani postcard (I don't now where he saw Azerbaijani postcard with prerevolution Russian and French descriptions).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page. I tried to explain to user 188.255.44.254 that this historical image is significant, but it seems that user just don't want to see any photos of Azerbaijanis in this article.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by 188.255.44.254
User:Interfase added an inappropriate photo of an insignificant (less than 4%) ethnic minority of a town. He added this controversial postcard without achieving a consensus at talk, while Editors should exercise discretion and rely on Talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. Azerbaijanis never had a significant presence in Gyumri and the added postcard had multiple issues: 1) it is redundant, 2) it is not dated, 3) the publisher is not known. 188.255.44.254 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Reminder: I'd like to remind both parties that there has been a ArbCom case that gives a very wide latitude to Admins to deal with disruption with respect to this article. That being is this issue still an active dispute? If there is no response in 48 hours, I'll close this down. Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this issue is still active. I didn't change my mind. And I think we should use postcard with historical image of Azerbaijanis in Gyumri in the article. But I cannot add it to the article, because I was warned about EW and anonymous user is against this postcard. So we need some solution. --Interfase (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And 188 IP, you're still willing to work out a solution?
 * I observe that you were cautioned about Weight and Neutral point of view. Do you think it might be a good idea to not include the image due to the fact that no other image on the page includes people as a defining characteristic? Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think this is not a good idea and goes against Neutral point of view. In this article there are a lot of images showing Armenian heritage of Gyumri (5 photos of Armenian churches and photo of Hovhannes Shiraz). There are even a photo showing Russian heritade of the town (photo of Russian Orthodox church). But the photo of Azerbaijanis was removed. In my opinion, it is not fair. If we have an information about Azeri population of the town, we can add the photo of Azerbaijanis. --Interfase (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point... There are no other images of people on the page therefore it might be appropriate to not have this image.  Also as far as I can tell the Azerbaijanis are a trivial minority when compared with other populations in the city.  Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to understand why the argument "We have Armenian and Russian images, why can't we have Azerbaijani?" is a poor argument to make. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we need other images of people? If you have them please add, I'll not be against. But we have this historical image. How many historical images of this town do you know? How many historical images, showing people of this town, do you know? I think this photo can help to understand the culture of the population of this town in this period of history. Don't you think so? --Interfase (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: Please see the Talk:Azerbaijanis in Armenia dispute, below, involving this same image. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Interfase, I'm seeing no significant justification for including that image, which has been questioned as to it's authenticity. I observe that you were called before ArbEnforcement with respect to edit warring over this image and have been subjected to a indefinite 1RR with respect to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic. So for that reason I'm going to render an outside opinion that the image should not be included. I indend to close this DRN as resolved in 24 hours pending a DRN volunteer's objection to the reading of consensus. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

occupational health psychology
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 issue involves a very contentious article. It has been the topic of dispute for several months. The topic is a professional one, in the sense that it involves psychology and psychology specializations as well as matters relating to psychologists internationally.

Related disputes involving occupational health psychology have also been going on between iss246 and many other editors since 2008. See the Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 for example. I entered the scene in 2013.

There has been edit warring. There has been accusations. There has been personal attacks. In between brief periods of civility.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried for months to resolve it in a civil manner but it has become quite personal and all attempts to resolve these content disputes has failed. Have not wanted to expend Wikipedia's resources over the issue but feel there is now no alternative.

How do you think we can help?

Simply by providing a neutral, objective, independent editor/administrator that has not been previously involved, to help resolve the ongoing disputes over content. Without any focus on editor behavior.

Summary of dispute by psych12
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Today's dispute is whether the journal Work & Stress is an occupational health psychology journal or not. The article originally said it was, and then Mrm7171 changed it to say it was not, based on the claim that the journal's own website doesn't say it is. As I indicated when I changed the passage back in the history note, the journal says it is concerned with Occupational Health, Stress, and Safety Management", which defines what OHP is. Furthermore, many sources say that it is, including one from the journal itself. Here is a sample.


 * 1. An editorial in the journal itself by Tom Cox, founder and editor of the journal. The title itself says it all. The opening sentence:


 * "Work & Stress is the longest established journal in the fast developing discipline that is occupational health psychology." (p. 1).
 * Cox, T., & Tisserand, M. (2006). Work & Stress come of age: Twenty years of occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 20(1) 1-5.


 * 2. Christie and Barling chapter cited in the article:


 * "A traditional academic perspective would examine, for example, citations to various articles or authors, or note that this field now has a formal name (occupational health psychology), its own acronym (OHP), and two flagship journals." (First page)


 * "As such, Work and Stress holds the distinction of being the first specific journal in the area." (Section on Tom Cox)


 * 3. Barling & Griffiths, (2011), A history of occupational health psychology. In Quick and Campbell, Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. 2nd ed. APA.


 * 4. Sinclair, Wang & Tetrick (2013). Research Methods in Occupational Health Psychology. Routledge, Preface


 * 5. Spector's website section on OHP journals, currently cited in the article. Psyc12 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by iss246
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I regret that what I have to write takes up more than 2000 characters. Psyc12’s response is satisfactory. I would like to take this matter one step further.

Mrm7171 has attempted to undermine OHP at the OHP entry and other entries (e.g., the psychology sidebar, industrial and organizational psychology entry, etc.) with the claim that OHP is a subdiscipline of I/O psychology.

I have studied the history of OHP as a professor of psychology and an OHP researcher, and find that claim wrong. OHP emerged out of health psychology, I/O, and occupational health. I/O psychology owes much to social psychology and psychometrics but it is its own discipline. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology but became its own discipline. Contributors have come to OHP from various disciplines inside and outside psychology (e.g., experimental psychology, social psychology, and medicine). Mrm7171 has argued with me, and he has made a large number of edits with an eye toward undermining OHP. His frontal assault on OHP not having succeeded thanks to the help of Psyc12, WhatamIdoing, Bilby, Richard Keatinge, and others, he has been nibbling at OHP in other ways. You can read Psyc12's response to Mrm7171’s wrong claim that Work & Stress is not an OHP journal.

Also note that in the ‘’Work & Stress’’ entry Mrm7171 insists on the calling the founder an organizational psychologist although rarely is a journal editor's title within psychology mentioned in an entry. I pointed out to Mrm7171 that the editor trained in behavioral pharmacology, which is consistent with how psychologists have come together from different disciplines to coalesce around OHP but Mrm7171 showed no interest in that information.

Another example of Mrm7171's war on OHP is his long argument that the International Commission on Occupational Health’s scientific committee on Work Organisation and Psychosocial Factors (ICOH-WOPS) is not concerned with OHP. I’ve been to an ICOH-WOPS congress having an OHP-oriented program. Psyc12 showed Mrm ICOH-WOPS program announcements. Mrm went on and on claiming that ICOH-WOPS is not concerned with OHP.

I add this. Most contributors to Wikipedia edit multiple categories. Mrm7171 stays in one place single-mindedly hammering OHP-related topics. When his edits are challenged, Mrm7171 writes walls of text on talk pages and repeats the same things again and again. There are a few individuals on Wikipedia who love to argue about one thing for the sake of arguing, and provoke serious-minded Wikipedians. Mrm7171 is one. Iss246 (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

All of this by iss246 is a complete fabrication on all of these points, and I could easily prove it. There are 2 open questions on the article talk page ignored once again. However I also do not wish to be 'flamed' by other users and their false allegations, personal attacks and blatant lies about their own qualifications.

Iss246 your degree is in Child Psychology not Work psychology and you even attack others with the same qualification for some reason. I have a lot of respect for Child/developmental psychology. Why not comment on those articles instead of work psychology and work stress? But please just stop fabricating and 'big noting' yourself. You do not have one, single, day's training in Work Psychology or work stress. Period.

I apologize for even this slight note back to iss246, as I do not wish to focus on editor behavior here. I want to get a resolution to this dispute please. Although I could in great detail, show iss246's many fabrications I will try hard to ignore his personal attacks and false accusations.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry iss246's frantic tirade above is extremely hard to ignore. That's what he wants. Iss246 wants to continue to edit war, instead of calmly resolving disputes in a civil, productive manner. Iss246, you have been in dispute with many good faith editors over this controversial occupational health psychology topic since 2008! I only entered the scene in 2013. You have a long history of editor disputes. That is why we are here. To get these content disputes sorted, once and for all!

See sub sections under occupational health psychology on this page: Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1

One experienced psychology editor said this of you in 2011 iss246. I believe DoctorW summed up your editing accurately. DoctorW said this about iss246 back in 2011:

"Anyone who reads the Talk page (including the Archive) will see that the consensus is very clear regarding OHP, and that the consensus was that it should not be added to the sidebar. Such readers will see that you doggedly pursued this issue, arguing for it with the tenacity of a fanatic, insisting on getting your way well after losing the argument. They will see that you subsequently added it anyway. It will be impossible readers who understand the conversation to fail to see the contradiction between your reversion of my deletion of it today and your statement here that "a consensus did develop regarding OHP." I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005, but I have never seen a more blatant example. It's hard to know what to say. I could obviously write a much stronger rebuke that shows great indignation and characterizes your action very unfavorably, but I will leave it at that. -DoctorW 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)"

I am hoping iss246 that by posting a dispute resolution request here the formal process allows these unresolved issues to get resolved properly and for you to cease your 'relentless' personal attacks. Please stop your fabrications, flaming and false accusations and focus on content issues only. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I respond to one of Mrm7171's claims against me, and then stop.


 * Yes. It is true that I have a Ph.D. in developmental psychology (not child psychology has Mrm7171 has many times claimed; developmental Ψ and child Ψ are different; a discussion of that difference would be a digression and this section is long enough). Having a doctorate in developmental Ψ should not disqualify me from editing Wikipedia entries. Many people in OHP have different backgrounds. I have NIOSH colleagues who have conducted OHP research and who come from experimental psychology. And of course, I have colleagues from I/O and social psychology.


 * I got involved with OHP the following way. One of my first jobs post-Ph.D. was at a department of psychiatry. I became part of a team that conducted research on kids who developed a number of different psychiatric disorders, some of whom had serious conduct problems. I turned over in my mind the people whom those kids most affected. They affected their own parents of course. They affected their peers. I had been a math teacher before I pursued a doctorate in developmental psychology, which made me consider how much those kids affected teachers, and caused teachers a good deal of psychological distress. I had taught in a pretty tough school, and observed first-hand how women compared to men teachers were more vulnerable to the threat of violence. I also knew two male teachers who had to take a medical/psychiatric leave and premature retirement because of the stress they experienced in the context of teaching very unruly and dangerous classes. While I was working in psychiatry, I pursued a post doc in the epidemiology program at Columbia. I became interested in research on stress and health; Bruce Dohrenwend had been one of my mentors. I began to think about studying in a scientific manner the impact of stressful job conditions on teachers. I saw that OHP was a good fit for me. I attended the first Work, Stress, and Health conference in Washington, DC in 1990. That became the inaugural conference in a conference series jointly sponsored by the American Psychological Association and the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health. APA and NIOSH, now joined by Society for Occupational Health Psychology, continue to sponsor the conference series. Lately, I have been conducting research on stresses affecting people who are self-employed and the overlap of burnout and depression. I also have also been reviewing the research literature on the relation of psychosocial working conditions to mental disorder, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal disorder for a publication I have been contracted to write. In the end, I assert that I have the qualifications to contribute to the OHP page, Mrm's claims about "child psychology" notwithstanding. 14:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Iss246, I resisted posting a request for dispute resolution much earlier, when I probably should have and was advised to do so, to avoid 'walls of text' on the discussion page. In hindsight that was a mistake, being quite new to Wikipedia. I did not want to expend editor resources on something I had hoped editors could achieve through civil consensus. But instead you have again pleased your self here, not Wikipedia, (who owns the article and indeed the site) by posting a subjective and possibly contrived? mini CV, it seems, for an independent volunteer to now have to wade through for no reason. This as I have been told is not the place for such discussion. It should be on your talk page.
 * I posted this article dispute to get a resolution and to focus on content only. I could post a detailed description of my own 30 years plus experience, and graduate qualifications specifically relating to the topics under discussion, but that would be grossly inappropriate for this place for content dispute resolution matters only. I just want these content issues, and our disputes resolved now, in an objective manner now to this controversial occupational health psychology article based on how Wikipedia wants their articles to be.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

occupational health psychology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I am increasingly concerned that this encyclopedic article which is 'only' about the topic of occupational health psychology, (not the 2 OHP societies), is grossly biased toward a focus only on the 2 'OHP societies' and the almost exclusive citing of published sources written by members of the 2 'OHP societies.' It is not including reference to the significant contributions of organizational psychology and organizational psychologists and other major published reliable sources on the topic of occupational health psychology? It has nothing to do with whether OHP is a specialization either. It is making this Wikipedia article very biased, and is not adhering to core Wikipedia principles. Neutral point of view I have been personally attacked, recently slandered on iss246's talk page, and accused of everything under the sun, for pointing out what Wikipedia wants from its own articles, and persisting and insisting on NPOV. That has been my point all along. All relevant published reliable sources should be included, rather than just those sources relating to a couple of private 'OHP societies,' and members of these private societies editing this article. Other major reliable sources from scientific journals and texts should also be represented in such important professional articles relating to psychology and medicine, for example. They are currently not. '''(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view.'''Mrm7171 (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Could some independent editor please volunteer to assist with this article as soon as possible. I am not sure how the process works from this point on? But things are degrading and we just need some independent outside assistance on the occupational health psychology article as soon as possible. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

An example of what is going on here is the current state where I have now listed a 'Wikipedia record' of some kind I am sure, for the most reliable sources ever provided for a single '2 word' inclusion in an article against a 'tag team' of editors protecting this article from any additions! I have been forced to provide now 11 reliable sources, ie. 'eleven' reliable sources for an inclusion of 'occupational stress' and from international psychological journals!Mrm7171 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an opening of discussion, but I see, not 1, not 3, but 7 different sections and subsections since the 8th on the talk page about your dispute. and what appears to be great postings everywhere trying to right great wrongs.  I strongly suggest that you take a backseat and give others an opportunity to respond.  All your rapid (and rabid) fire postings are doing is unifying a consensus against your proposed changes. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also with 54k new bytes being posted in the past 4 days, how should someone who hasn't been in the organic evolution of the discussion expect to be able to read the discussion? I'm inclined to decline this DRN request in favor of a single discussion thread or to open a RFC to sollicit outside editors (Probably from Wikiproject Psychology and related projects) to build a consensus.  At this time I see one editor who is posting a great amount trying to override a consensus of other editors. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Hasteur, I think that is a great idea. This is a psychology article, not a article about a pair of ugg boots. I would very much welcome objective opinions from others in the psychology community. The three editors at the moment are trying to delete my single edit with currently 10 reliable sources attached. Surely they could focus on another section to the article, something more productive, like the training section. This has been an ongoing battle with iss246 and other editors since 2008. I include the link here, because it is rtelevant to the same discussion over occupational health psychology and the term work stress. Other psychology editors need to be able to refer to this ongoing discussion over OHP & the term work stress that iss246 clearly associated with OHP back in 2008 through to 2011. I entered the scene in 2013. There are numerous psychology editors discussing exactly the same issue we are discussing today here: in the template talk: Psychology sidebar / Archive 1. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1


 * Also when I entered the words occupational stress a few days ago, I moved straight on. The 'walls and walls of text over a 2 word addition that iss246 strongly argued for in 2008 through to 2011, in the template talk: Psychology sidebar / Archive 1, could have been resolved in 1 minute. There are other bigger issues in this biased article than a 2 word edit. And even now, with 10 sources attached these 3 editors are plotting to get rid of the 2 words! Make of it what you will. But hey, if others were to read the talk pages from 2008 until today over this controversial area of Occupational health psychology in related articles, beginning with iss246's history of going against the consensus and jamming it into the applied psychology sidebar against the better opinions of 6 independent psychology editors! If anyone were interested go right back to the page 1, Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 pour yourself a beer and read it for yourselves. Enjoy!Mrm7171 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response here is a prime example of the problem I discribed... What could have been solved with a simple 1 line response balooned into a multi-paragraph response. I say again... Give others an opportunity to respond before you post yet annother TL:DR screed. Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to your first line this is not the right location for Sockpuppet accusations. I see you've taken Mrm7171 to SPI already once, so I explicitly invite you to present your evidence there and let the clerks/checkusers sort it out. That being the case, I need you to show good faith (and follow this board's requirements) and strike the asseriton. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to strike it from this page because it occurred back in January, 9 months ago. I have had enough arguing about this sockpuppet matter. It would also be nice if Mrm7171 would stop hassling me about an intense argument in which I was a party back in 2008. Iss246 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have stood back from the article as wisely suggested by Hasteur for days now. It has been very difficult to present an independent viewpoint on this article page. This has been due to a 'flood' of new Wikipedia members who all joined up at the same time around the beginning of June this year. They are all from the same small 'OHP society' and joined up after iss246 'put a call out' to members of this small group, outside of Wikipedia, to help support 'his viewpoint' over issues on the talk page. Ever since, it has been very difficult to make constructive edits, because this group of 'friends/colleagues/OHP society members,' outside of Wikipedia, and which all 'joined up' Wikipedia, on the same day, after being 'enlisted' by iss246, and have only edited on the occupational health psychology article. This group of iss246's friends, outside of Wikipedia, include but are not limited to: Psyc12, Jannainnaija, 86.68.226.209, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others. How is an independent editor, like me, able to have a voice? Suggestions please?


 * I don't want to write very much more on this page than the following. To my knowledge, only Psyc12 responded to my request in a sustained way. If the others edited the OHP page, those edits were negligible. That is not a flood. Iss246 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, at this point, I think the best plan is to launch an RfC on the talk page that is advertised to Wikiproject Psychology and see what results from it. I observe there's claims of puppetry on both sides so I'd like to strongly reccomend that both sides be impeccably scrupulus in their behavior. Pending significant objection I indend to close this filing in 48 hours with a reccomendation of opening a neutral RfC. Hasteur (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To set the record straight, there was a claim of sock-puppetry against me but the claim was found not to have merit. Someone thought I was Psyc12. But I am not. Iss246 (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The named accounts all appear to be unrelated - they are using different devices from very different locations." See Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what also said about the case by an independent editor, Kww, and the part that Guy Macon just left out of his paste above.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect meatpuppetry here: some kind of call for comment on another forum, a statement in a newsletter about evil Wikipedia bias, something like that. However, I cannot prove it, checkuser says the are not socks, and any collusion between the accounts seems fairly innocuous. There's just not enough meat here to take action.&mdash;Kww'''(talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally never mentioned classic sockpuppetry,, what I outlined was a flood of new editors all 'signing up' on the same day, all 'enlisted' or directly contacted and specifically asked to join up or open new accounts on Wikipedia all at the same time, to support iss246's case, all members of the same small society of occupational health psychology (SOHP), all friends/colleagues outside of Wikipedia. Psyc12 was one of them and is still actively editing, supporting everything iss246 says. All of the others from this SOHP society may come back at any time, to support iss246, the leader. What is suggested here to resolve the article dispute? These issues of a whole bunch of editors from the same Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) community and friends outside of Wikipedia, namely Psyc12', Jannainnaija, 86.68.226.209, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Two un-involved editors, Bilby and myself, have been doing our best in the last several days to help on Talk:Occupational health psychology. I may be over-optimistic, but we may all be progressing usefully towards consensus. I'm not convinced that an RfC would be useful at this point. I would appreciate support from Hasteur and any other admins who can spare the time. Specifically I'd like to ask them to keep an eye on the page for a week or two at least, and to be ready to act if things seem to be going out of control again. If the page degenerates into digressions and wrangles again, I suspect that action more forceful than an RfC would be appropriate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to edit this article with at least 7 seven editors all from the same small Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) who joined up the same day to fully support iss246 in every way, at any time needed. What can an independent editor do against seven or more friends outside of Wikipedia in this Society for Occupational Health Psychology all ganging up and reinforcing iss246's point of view, whenever needed, in this very biased article?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, just a volunteer and regular editor. Hasteur (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seven editors from a society are not ganging up on Mrm7171. As I wrote earlier, if seven people from a society joined Wikipedia they quickly ceased to edit, if they made any edits at all. The two individuals with a professional connection to OHP are Psyc12 and me. Iss246 (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts about the utility of an RfC here because the problems include unclear and incoherent expression of whatever question is being put, combined with interpersonal discourtesy and digressions. Apologies to Hasteur, but I feel that we will need an admin rather than just more advice. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing rattling of Conduct claims. If that's the case WP:ANI is where you need to stop off at to get a reading on the conduct issues before the content issues is dealt with. This DRN is concluded with a referrals to ANI or to launch the editor conducted RfC. Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Acid Rap
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

1-2 weeks ago Ben0kto started edit warring with Static over Acid Rap. Years ago it was an article about a genre but was deleted & merged due to a lack of notability. Ben has insisted that the genre is notable, but has yet to give any RS to show this. He's moved the article for the mixtape to another article to create an article for the genre, which has been reverted several times by Static. Ben has been blocked twice for edit warring over this page. Several users have tried to explain guidelines to him.

He's openly stated that he is largely ignorant of the guidelines here & that nobody has tried to explain things to him. I've tried several times, Static's tried, and Yunshui's tried, among other editors. Ben will say that he didn't mean to edit war or be disruptive, but will then continue editing disruptively without showing that he learned anything. Most of the talk has occurred on his talk page, but that was only after several of us tried to explicitly explain guidelines to him.

An example of the arguments is that he has argued that the article was "hijacked" & that since the genre is older, the article should be for the genre even if it should be a redirect. I've explained that the guideline is to have the basic name go to the most likely search term, which is in this case the mixtape, and that being first/older matters little since it's not a guarantee of notability, which is in question here.

I can't help but feel that at this point I can't explain things much more clearly to him and he's accused me of not being helpful & of nitpicking. I've tried helping him & steering him in the right direction, but he seems to be resistant to anything I say now. He keeps saying that he didn't know, but he's said that even after several editors have come on & tried to explain things in varying degrees of detail. I'm not sure how much more detail we can go in without sitting next to him IRL. (Note: Editor in question is currently blocked, so some of this might have to take place on his talk page.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've talked on the following pages: (added 3 I forgot to add initially)

User_talk:Tokyogirl79 User_talk:STATicVerseatide User_talk:Ben0kto (most of the discussion has been here) Talk:Acid Rap (very little happened here until several of us specifically told him to discuss on the talk page) Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring ANI

How do you think we can help?

I'd like someone to just mediate for the most part, although it would be nice if someone verified with him that what I've been trying to tell him is based on guidelines and isn't something I arbitrarily came up with. My issue is that he keeps trying to claim ignorance, but at this stage I think that he can't really argue that as much anymore. He's had so many people explain things to him that, assume he's read things, he should have a good working knowledge.

Summary of dispute by Ben0kto
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not a behavior issue and only days, not 1-2 weeks, old. This is a reference issue. I made some simple good faith edits (some very quickly) on Acid Rap starting about 2 or 3 days ago; both users User:STATicVerseatide and User:Tokyogirl79 continue to team up with other admins like User:Yunshui and complain, asking admins like User:Yunshui and User:DrKiernan for EW blocks and joining in on one another's talk pages to help re-revert the article to a much less noteworthy subject (see Talk page) when I pointed out obvious facts and provided noteworthy textbook and newspaper references backing up my edits, they simply ignore them, then continue to add nothing truly meaningful (Google books) (also see Talk page) but instead they keep focusing on my previously removed non-RS and quick, “controversial” edits. They will not provide any reliable text references to support their own claim that the album deserves to be more associated with the term; however, they cite a couple of magazine examples such as Rolling Stone and XXL which are rarely associated with this type of music (see Esham, Mastamind), which is also not fair because magazine reviews are not the only, nor the most reliable, form of references. Editing policy is being learned and practiced slowly but surely (No social media/blog/merchant site refs; Move, don’t copy, articles; no 24-hour reverts; use Talk page first, etc.) The only resolution would be to keep, move, merge, or otherwise join but separate (disambiguate) the two subjects (based on verifiable details). This is my final attempt. Existing isn’t notability, and the existence of this fairly new digital album does not permit it to be the most notable subject associated with simply “Acid Rap”, a term owned by acid rapper Esham (per WP:SOURCES). Album can be moved by adding “(album)” to the title per WP:ALBUMS or merged with artist page, as opposed to adding "(genre)" for the original term. Acid Rain (album), Carnival of Carnage, Life after death (disambiguation) are now linked to the article via minor edits. Please see the article’s Talk page. Ben0kto (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Yunshui
At this point, I see this as more of a behaviour issue than a content issue, and so I'm not convinced it belongs here. The legitimacy or otherwise of the genre, and whether or not the page should be renamed, has become a secondary issue to Ben0kto's refusal to abide by the guidelines. I would suggest moving this to RCU (it's already been to ANI, with the result that Ben0kto has been temporarily blocked). The relevant policies have been linked to on Ben0kto's talkpage, and I and others have given him concise summaries of them, however despite his, "thanks, I'll do that," replies he has continued to war over the article. To me, that demonstrates at best an inability to understand, at worst a considered and willful intent to disrupt. Either way, Ben0kto's conduct is the problem here, rather than the article title. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  18:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Acid Rap discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to DRN. I am a regular volunteer here (and am the current DRN coordinator), but I'm not opening this for general discussion at this time or "taking" it, but instead just want to make some procedural comments. I'm not at all certain this is the proper venue for this. Other than conduct matters, which are not within the purview of DRN, the only content question is whether or not the genre article should be created. That is an odd question, at best, for DRN. (Nor does it seem to me that discussing the creation of a new article at Talk:Acid Rap is the proper venue when the article to be created is not a fork of the topic of that article but, in fact, a wholly new article of which the mixtape article is a subset. By discussing the creation of the new article there, the community as a whole really does not have the proper ability to weigh in on the creation question because discussion of that question is not foreseeable at the mixtape article. While that could be cured by filing a RFC on the article creation question, that is still not the normal process.) New articles are generally created by just simply creating them, by creating them through AfC, or by creating them as a userspace draft and then moving them into mainspace. Whether the article should then survive is a question for our normal deletion processes. Decisions made through those processes and disputes arising during those processes generally are not appropriate for DRN because those processes have what amounts to built-in dispute resolution processes. And disputes filed here which arise out of deletion processes are, indeed, ordinarily declined. Similarly, disputes involving article renaming are, similarly, usually declined here at DRN because they, too, have a built-in dispute resolution process via Requested moves. While the present discussion at Talk:Acid Rap may perhaps be the most efficient way to deal with the issue, it is sufficiently out-of-ordinary-process that I have to wonder if the best thing to do might not be to show Ben0kto how to create a userspace or AFC draft under the title Acid Rap (genre), let him take his best shot at it with or without the assistance of the other editors involved here, and then move it into mainspace where it can either be kept or deleted through the established and definitive deletion processes. I agree with Yunshui that the help requested by the listing editor is really help with behavior and, as noted previously, that's not within the scope of this noticeboard. I'm not closing this because other DRN volunteers may have a different opinion, but we here at DRN just really aren't in the article creation or deletion business and I'm not at all sure what we can do in this case. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I've tried to explain things to him. I moved an article to his userspace a week or so ago, which is why I say that this started a while ago, so if he's unaware of the concept of working in the userspace, it's because he's deliberately ignored past messages. Now as far as why I mentioned the magazines I did, that is because I wanted to give an example of what would be considered a reliable source. Ben has been linking to things such as twitter feeds, merchant sites, and other things that are wildly unusable sources. I mentioned those magazines because they're a better example of the type of thing that we could use on Wikipedia. As far as "ganging up" goes, I didn't request a second 3RR request until after Ben had made several attempts to create the article despite being told several, several times that he needed to stop. He's used the excuse of being unaware of guidelines, but at that point it just seemed like he wasn't going to stop until he was made to stop. There is a dispute over the title and I'll be completely honest: I'm starting to seriously doubt that Ben will do any beneficial contributions at this point because now he's on a crusade to get the article the way he wants it rather than to make it fit guidelines. Ben, I know you'll read this so please... stop trying to get the article the way you want it. We've told you that this is not how Wikipedia works. Several of us have tried to get you to understand things a little better and all you've done is try to say that because we didn't pour over every facet in every perceivable aspect, that you "don't understand". At some point if you keep this up, this could lead to a permanent ban, which despite your claims, is not what I want to happen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with that article. This editing was made in good faith, not out of ignorance. I am slowly learning the correct way that Wikipedia works, and I also plan on recreating any other non-existing articles for other notable artists whom text references can be found for. As previously mentioned, the article does not belong with "genre" afterwards in parentheses unless a disambiguation is made (see Talk page). Ben0kto (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even after opposition from myself and Tokyogirl79 on the article talk page, Ben0kta again moved Acid Rap to Acid Rap (album). That is not only an incorrect title (it is a mixtape), it was again disruptively done without consensus. I request that some action be taken against this user and the article Acid Rap, be move protected to avoid future disruption without a proper WP:RM.  STATic  message me!  16:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor
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 has been edit war due to her age conflicts. Times of India, stated she is 24 years old (born 1989), but International Business Times, claimed she is 21 years old born 1992). Her age is still a mystery. It is more logical to leave it blank until came to a finally consensus. But the main page provide her age 26 years old. I kept on disputing and talking to others users, but i was constantly ignored. It is more creditable to leave her DOB, section blank rather provide dubious information to her DOB.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The page is fully protected which is correct, but no final consensus had been taken yet, it is more appropriate to leave her DOB section blank rather than provide dubious information. We still can dispute it on the talk page of Shraddha Kapoor.

How do you think we can help?

It is more accurate to see the weight of both sides, and came to a finally consensus. let the DOB section blank, we can still dispute in the talk page. I feel it is more appropriate.

Summary of dispute by C.Fred
I came to the Shraddha Kapoor article after seeing the edit war ongoing between User:Smauritius and User:Rose$keel in the article history. Another admin protected the article text; I've then been trying to get the discussion at the talk page to address the questions of the reliability of the source then provided in the article (diffs to my talk page edits: ).

The Times of India and International Business Times sources are new since I last visited the talk page, but that's what I was hoping to achieve: to get the involved editors to focus on policy-based questions for including the date like secondary vs. primary sourcing and to go looking for more sources. I don't want to opine further on the new sources; I feel I've been interacting in the administrative capacity in the article rather than as an involved editor and intend to continue in that vein.

That said, I think this dispute resolution is premature. The talk page is functioning as designed; yes, I concede it's a slow process to allow others time to respond, rather than making the change quickly, but it's working, and more voices are chiming in than just the two editors initially involved. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Geniac
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no opinion on the validity of the source used for her date of birth. That is for the users in the dispute to discuss. I am "involved" in this dispute only in the sense that I have protected The Wrong Version of the article. --Geniac (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Ponyo
My involvement has been on the administrative side only (i.e. protecting the article due to repeated BLP violations and advising the main parties to this specific dispute to follow the dispute resolution avenues available to them). I have no preference to any date being added, as long as it meets WP:BLPSOURCES.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Edit war of the article page had not came to an consensus yet, see the talk page and the View history of Shraddha Kapoor.

Her DOB, section was blank. Until, Rose$keel, add her DOB in the main page. I have revert it and left a message in User Talk Page, to claim everything on the article talk page not main page.. But, still he/she kept on reverting it. I am not complaining the user as i fully aware that no one had the ownership, everyone can contribute to Wikipedia.

No, consenus was finally taken. It is not yet taken as well. But still i was reported seeing my past actions and personal reactions. Blaming, my actions are Vandalism. Which is totally unfair, View History of Shraddha Kapoor.

The page later, was fully protected by Geniac, which might be the good thing. But he/she judges only the weight of one-side of the situation. We can still dispute in Talk page, but it is more convenient and accurate to leave her DOB section blank until came to a conclusion.

If see, the main page it seems that, the finally consensus had already taken. By, presenting her age and fully protect the page which is dubious at all.

Let me know where i am wrong???

Archana Ramdonee, Palabeuse Fer palab unpeu 09:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * View the talk page, Shraddha Kapoor DOB, is claimed by a non-active user. The basis of CINTAA, her age cannot be proven. If Shraddha Kapoor, never spoken about she is 26 years old, it is still so dubious to add her DOB, in Wikipedia. This matter cannot be taken casually, we should dip in the depth of solutions. It might turn out into a legal issue of defaming a public figure identity.

I have one solution, i work as a Journalist in Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation, i try to led down an interview with Shraddha Kapoor, and also try to perform some research work in CINTAA Cite Authorisation.

If any, solution came out it will be more appropriate. The disputing of Shraddha Kapoor, pivotal involving are Smauritius, Geniac and Rose$keel dip into the matter.

Archana Ramdonee, Palabeuse Fer palab unpeu 15:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Saib Tabrizi
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Look down below.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Urməvi reverts my edits and calls this person for an Azeri with no sources to backup his claims. I told him that he had no sources for his claims and that there were already several sources claiming that he Persian, but then he suddenly reverted the edit and wrote: Azerbaijanis are not persians! Which makes no sense to me since i did not say that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I already have by telling him that he can't just add that kind of information without any sources, but he simply won't listen.

NOTE: I have not tried to do it on the article's talk page but i don't think it will help since i already have tried explaining it to him on his talk page and on the history page of the article.

How do you think we can help?

Well, your opinions would mean a lot.

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

Saib Tabrizi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Council on American–Islamic Relations
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

Roscelese is insisting that "a judge" removed CAIR from the Attathment A list of unindicted co conspirators. There is no truth to this. One can read the decision of judge Solis, as well as the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which clearly state they are not removing any names of the list.

Roscelese is threatening to have me banned from Wikipedia for making entries he doesn't like. This is completely uncalled for. He is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.

He can not back up this assertion, and he resorting to having me banned from Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked to Roscelese on his "talk" page, as well as, the "talk" page for the Wikipedia entry for CAIR. He is adamant, and hostile, not interested in reason.

How do you think we can help?

What Roscelese is saying about CAIR unindicted co conspirator status is not true. It simply isn't true. One can read the decision of Judge Solis, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and see that what Roscelese is claiming is not true. I don't know why I should be threatened over this.

Summary of dispute by Roscelese
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is very far from rising to the level of a DR. Livingengine1 is a new user and a single-purpose account. When he raised his concerns, I asked him on the talk page to propose an alternate way of wording the statement rather than removing reliable sources, which he has refused to do. Instead, he has blanked the material and also repeatedly, after warnings, inserted BLP violations. I'm inclined to report him. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

the council on american islamic relations discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Hi, I'm one of the volunteers here at DRN. I agree that this should be discussed further on the article talk page. We can only help if parties are willing to discuss and work together to resolve a dispute. Livingengine1, I would suggest you try and work with Roscelese on the article talk page to try and come up with a workable compromise. Other volunteers here, putting a 24 hour notice on this. Regards, Steven Zhang (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Uninvolved commenter: I would also agree with Steven that this should be discussed more on the talk page. If discussion stalls consider a third opinion as there are currently just the two disputants as that may be quicker than a full DRN case. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 08:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Electric Current
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 objected to the use of the expression "Current Flow" and other variants which imply that current is flowing. Any attempts I have made to use other wording have been reverted, on ocassion with snarky edit comments. The argument for using the expression are that it is used a extensively in electrical engineering books and papers. This is true. However, my point for removing it is that the use of the word is WP: Jargon, a violation of MOS, as well as the meaning of the word current used in the expression, is different from the definition of current provided in the articles. The discussion regarding the original dispute at Electric current died off on September 28th, however when I tried to make similar changes on Alternating current, and Direct current I was reverted, and the discussion went slightly further on the talk page of Alternating Current.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just discussion on talk pages

How do you think we can help?

Suggestions for alternate wordings, additional opinions on relevant policies and guidelines.

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

Summary of dispute by No such user
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As far as I'm concerned, this issue may be closed. I still disagree with GliderMaven and Kyohyi on several counts, and think their intervention is quite unnecessary pedantry; however, as long as they find a way to formulate disputed sentences in plain, idiomatic English, I won't be opposed. Which does not mean I will not use the disputed formulation in the future, but I don't intend to do it just out of spite. The Electric current article still contains broken sentences, by the way. And I consider this edit by Kyohyi as introducing more of those. No such user (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GliderMaven
So far as I know the discussion seems to be over, we're going to be using the terms 'charge flow' or 'current' instead because the term 'current flow' is at best ambiguous and in this context probably wrong; although current flow is often used to mean 'current' it is technically how the current moves, not how the charge moves, and the charge and currents can be moving in completely different directions. It could be good to have a terminology section.GliderMaven (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Electric Current discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Demographics of New York City
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

Estimate of languages spoken in New York City. 1. Last September I replaced a sentence in the opening paragraph in the above article that stated as many as 800 languages were spoken, making NYC the most linguistically diverse city in the world. The original sentence was cited to a piece in the New York Times of 2010, where the figure of 800 was attributed to "some experts". I replaced the sentence with an estimate of 200, citing the current New York City Department of Planning webpage. 2. My revision was reverted by 173.63.176.93 in Dec 2012, and a new citation added, to the website of the Endangered Language Alliance, which also features the estimate of 800 languages, again attributed to "some experts". 3. After explaining my motives and inviting input in Talk, I replaced the 800 figure with 200 on 4 Sep this year. It was reverted by Castncoot, who also reverted my language edit of another section of this article earlier the same day. 4. After discussion, I suggested a compromise sentence which included both figures, with citations, on 11 Sept. This was initially accepted by Castncoot, but criticised (although not rejected) by 173.63.176.93. Castncoot then returned to his original position and stated that he considered the original '800' sentence "the truth". 5. After posting an appeal for consensus, with no replies, I posted an intention to replace the sentence in the article with the compromise version, and that I would seek mediation here if it was reverted. I did so yesterday. 6. It was then reverted by 173.63.176.93.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted requests on Bervies, 98.113.136.78, Castncoot and 173.63.176.93's Talk pages requesting them to look at the article Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Read the Talk page "800 Languages?" section, and offer impartial advice, which I for one will accept without question.

Summary of dispute by 173.63.176.93
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nobody agrees with Robocon's sentence but he won't accept it. Continue on the discussion page, please. Does castncoot even know that robocon is pulling people into this?173.63.176.93 (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Castncoot
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm sorry, I've been busy and continue to be busy in real life. But briefly for now, I'm afraid Robocon1 has grossly misrepresented my viewpoint, more so on the actual article's Talk page than here. I initially expressed tolerance for his position out of exasperation (because he had already sent me 3 or 4 messages to my own User Talk page); then it was a whopping total of only 7 hours before I realized that his position did not correctly represent the material at hand and that I should not be pressured by him into accepting content which I absolutely do not believe to represent the correct course.

The article's Talk page summarizes the argument nicely; therefore, it's not worth repeating here. Castncoot (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Prosfilaes
The sources being pushed by Castncoot are not all that reliable. Any good source for a statement like 800 languages should come with descriptions of what they mean by "languages spoken in" and list of languages, like any peer-reviewed work would demand. Numbers that we don't know how they were created are always problematic. "Making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world" in the article is even a misquote of the New York Times article being pushed, which says "It is the capital of language density in the world", turning an figurative statement into a definitive one. An edit that names sources was summarily reverted for one that treats 800 languages as if that were a universally accepted number.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Demographics of New York City discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Continue on the discussion page, please.173.63.176.93 (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you please explain how "some experts" qualifies as a reliable source over the cities own statements? This is a difference that is a factor of 4. While the US government is in partial shutdown the census information is offline... complicating this mess. But even simple searches relay that the number of languages used in the USA is 311. This by reverse association says that 311 languages are in use, so 800 cannot be in New York City alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar
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 would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss, so that we can contribute the article as per Wikipedia policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

talk page, discussed there, tried to improve the article to match the wikipedia policy.

How do you think we can help?

Neutral experience administrator can guide to solve this dispute, we are trying to match the wikipedia policy.

Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian
As long as the above editor is willing to contribute civilly, without casting aspersions on myself and other editors, I'm willing to continue the discussion. We may as well do so here. But I am not interested in a discussion if it's going to include insults and insinuations that I'm part of some sort of meatpuppet cadre, as the OP has already implied. Also, we need to notify the other people who've already contributed to the discussion (I know Sitush did, I'll have to check if there were more). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Premknutsford
thanks Fordx12. Please see the talk page of Ambedkar with Number 46 'Request to add sections to article'. I tried my level best to match wikipedia policy to contribute, After getting some valuable suggestion from users, I updated the draft. But without proper study some user taking excuse of the article. About meatpuppet, no body's name were mentioned who was involved in meatpuppet, it's upto one's own thinking. No comment on this. I updated this draft with reliable sources as well. Not able to understand the (centric point of) some user. Requesting all time ,neutral point of USERS. I like to invite one more user called who was also involved. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please find the details about the updated draft that I was contributing.

'I would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss, so that we can contribute the article as per Wikipedia policy.'

Role in Economic Planning
A leading economist Narendra Jadhav  said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”. "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."

Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably very high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice along with economic planning, water resource and electric power development.

Member of Planning commission and National advisory council asserted that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution. Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.

Role in water resource and power planning
“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour, Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively. “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948.

Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. " Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago.


 * Sorry, when I came back, I posted to the article's talk page rather than here; I'll repeat them here, because on the talk page, Premknutsford and I don't seem to be getting anywhere between just the two of us.  I have two major concerns with the above draft.


 * 1) The first section, talking about Jadhav's opinion about Ambedkar's qualifications as an economist are, really, just that--Jadhav's opinion. Now, I accept that Jadhav is a fairly respected economist in India, important enough to have a WP article. Nonetheless, I don't believe his opinion is important enough to meet WP:UNDUE and be included as a major section in this article. As far as I can tell, while that opinion has been repeated in a number of Indian newspapers, no other economist (or other academic) has stated agreement with that opinion. That means it's still just the opinion of a single academic. And since it's really a statement of opinion (not fact), it's really inappropriate, I believe, to overemphasize it. I don't believe it should be in the article at all, but, if others think it deserves some mention, it should be embedded somewhere else in the article as a single sentence backed by a single reference, to make sure that it doesn't break WP:UNDUE.
 * 2) The article by Abraham does not meet WP:RS for the statements which Premknutsford wishes to use it. Abraham was a government bureaucrat. Yes, he was involved with aspects of the government along with Ambedkar. But that does not mean that he is has the level of expertise (or independence) needed to make judgments about Ambedkar. Furthermore, if you look at the excerpts of the book that are available (if you can see them via Google Books), the book is very clearly an autobiographical piece, written in first person, reflecting Abraham's judgment, not something drawn together as an independent researcher. Perhaps there are some things for which this book could be considered an RS, but not what Premknutsford has used. I don't know if this matter can be really dealt with here, or if it might be better at WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I am your DRN volunteer for this discussion. A few things to remember. First, avoid typing with emotions involved. Take a moment, breathe, walk away and do something else and then come back. Second, stick to the facts and avoid accusing anyone of anything unless there is evidence to back it up. If there is evidence, please seek the proper notice boards for such a thing. Before we begin, it would be nice for Sitush to make comment, since he/she has been mentioned. I dropped a ping on Sitush's talk page. Until then, please make sure to state what the specific dispute is in a concise manner so that we can begin with a clean slate here instead of continuing a complicated long thread from another place.Fordx12 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just a second test to see if the bot works to "open" this case Fordx12 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I'll be off WP for about 48 hours from now, sorry. definitely willing to continue from then. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm likely to be on and off for a few days also but, sure, do it here. As I recall the main issues were weight, copyright violations and questionable sources but I've not loked at the discussion for a few days. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

you don't believe one person opinion, but in wikipedia, such a reference is in most of the articles and acceptable as the claiming person is widely recognize in that subject. your centric view won't allow you to recognize it. who bother about your opinion? as leading economist opinion is considerable not yours. We are writing article to match WP policy not to satisfy opinion of administrator. We clearly mentioned a statement of leading economist as per WP policy. If you like to verify the degree and honor received by Ambedkar, please take a look at it. Again on Abraham, see teahouse discuss as well, this book can be consider as reliable source. About Prathipati Abraham. Experience administrator also said that, that book can be treat as reliable sources. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=damming-the-mahanadi-river-the-emergence-of-multi-purpose-river-valley-development-in-india-dsouza.pdf&site=253 this url also support Prathipati Abraham. Authors is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. This is well enough to meet WP policy. If you are talking about independent research please visit http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4412892?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102736221167, This journal is published by Economic and Political Weekly. As people around the world use WP as a source of information. We need to present it in systematic and clear way by making "Role in X ". It's your way of thinking not allowing to see truth. sorry nobody can help you, it's only you to help yourself to accept the truth. sorry to say but Most of the time you proved to be wrong because of your centric view .Sorry if looks rude on your opinion.Premknutsford25 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I moved the discussion under the last summary for organizational purposes.


 * Okay, let's see if I got this straight. Correct me if I have the "facts" of the dispute incorrect. Qwyrxian wants to add the collapsed information to the current article, but Permknustford doesn't believe that Jahdav's opinion as an economist is notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:UNDUE. Permknutsford also feels that Abraham's opinions should not be written in such a way that they seem to be "factual" or based on some sort of research/researcher's opinion. Qwyrxian says that Abraham's book is reliable, as others have noted elsewhere. Permknutsford just doesn't feel that it can be used as an "experts" opinion to give value judgments like a newscaster can say who's the best Football player in the world (soccer).


 * Now here's one thing I noticed about Abraham. Yes, he has an article on an academic journal, but I am not sure on what capacity he is included in there. Is it the opinion of an individual who is experienced in dealing with economists? Is it as a PhD who is writing a paper based on his research? If he is not an "economic expert" is his opinion as a political leader important in India? If the governor of the USA state of Florida names someone as being the best Anthropologist, his opinion carries weight due to his influence in the public and is noteworthy enough. Is it enough to say that said person IS the best anthropologist or that he is considered the best? Absolutely not. So it depends on how you write it. So that's my main question about Abraham, how notable is he?


 * Is Jahdav a leading economist in the region? If so, that makes him notable enough to mention. But WP:UNDUE does imply that you can't make it out like if it is the opinion to be believed above other opinions. So one person, notable, in the fields believes he's that good. And another socially notable person feels that Ambedkar is the best. Is that still enough to say that people, and thus the research from secondary sources, state that he is considered to be the best at this or that? What I mean is that every book claims to be a "best seller" the problem is that logically not every book can be the best seller.


 * Please provide your input and point out any of my mistakes, if I made any. Also, please note that I am not dealing with any of the accusations. Let's keep those away from this page. It's not a good idea to assume that "meat puppeting" is going on without actual behavioral evidence WP:AGF. Fordx12 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You've got the positions reversed: Premknutsford supports adding this information, and I oppose. But the rest is basically correct. Let me focus in on just Jahadav: in earlier drafts, Premknutsford made it more sound like Ambedkar "is" the best educated economist, and one thing I do appreciate is that the newest version is much more clear that this is just Jahadav's opinion. What I am asserting is that we can't just fill up a biographical article with random opinions of random people (even if they are notable). WP:UNDUE says that we should only include opinions with due reference to how important the opinion is in the real world. And, basically, unless we can show that this opinion is held by more than one person, it basically falls under WP:FRINGE, which says we don't mention it at all. But even if we could agree that it deserves at least some mention (something I'm willing to consider), it cannot be highlighted in the way Premknutsford wants. Premknutsford is essentially engaging in hagiography--trying to find things to praise Ambdekar for. Well, Ambedkar is a praiseworthy fellow, but we need to not go out of our way to find everything that he might have done that might be "good", and need to instead focus only on the major aspects of his work. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am supporting to add this information as per WP policy. First Jadhav is Leading and notable Economist, to prove this, some link was also provided. If we study the degree and honor received by any INDIAN on economics which support Jadhav claim. Again this is not something you are praising, This is something you are contributing valuable information. Only centric view can see as a praise, but neutral view say some information. About Abraham, Abraham is not economist, he is expert in Energy and power sector. He held highly responsible post on Energy and power sector. His expertise on Energy sector can't be ignorable. Please read below mini biography of Abraham.

Mr. Prathipati Abraham Rao, IAS (Retd.), served as Secretary in the Ministry of Power, Government of India. Mr. Rao served as the Chairman and Managing Director of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation. Mr. Rao served for 35 years in the Indian Administrative Services, where he held a number of executive positions with the Central and State Governments such as Chairman of Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Commissioner of Industries, GoAP. He worked in various capacities as the Secretary Municipal Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He served as Secretary to the Maharashta State Electricity Board and Secretary to the Energy Department of Government of Maharashtra. Mr. Rao served as Joint Secretary of Industries Department, Government of Maharashtra, Iron & Steel Controller, Ministry of Steel, Government of India. He served as Managing Director of Investment Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, Environmental & Energy Department Additional Secretary and Special Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India. He was instrumental in the formulation and finalization of the Common Minimum National Plan for Power (CMNPP). He serves as Chairman of the Advisory Board at Amplus Infrastructure Developers Private Ltd. He served as the Chairman of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. from February 1989 to July 1991. He serves as an Independent Director of NCC Infrastructure Holdings Limited. Mr. Rao has been an Independent Director of Orient Green Power Company Limited since March 27, 2010. He serves as a Non Executive Independent Director at TAJGVK Hotels & Resorts Limited and served as its Additional Director since April 30, 2009. He has been a Director of NCC Limited since January 11, 2006. He serves as Non-Executive & Independent Director of Lanco Infratech Limited and served as its Additional Independent Director since June 16, 2006. He serves as Director of Future Polyesters Limited. Mr. Rao serves as a Director of Jindal Power Company. He has been a Director of JSW Energy Ltd since October 20, 2003. Mr. Rao has been a Director of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited since January 11, 2006. He serves as a Director of Futura Polyster Limited, Flex Middle East FZE, Vijay Electricals Limited, Himalayan Green Energy Private Limited and Green Infrastructure Private Limited. He has been a Director of GVK Power and Infrastructure Company Limited since September 10, 2005. He serves as a Director of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. He serves as a Non-Executive Independent Director at Visaka Industries Limited. He serves as a Director of Lanco Power Limited. He served as an Additional Director of Taj GVK Hotels and Resorts Ltd., since April 30, 2009. Mr. Rao served as an Independent Non-Executive Director of Uflex Ltd. from October 30, 2003 to June 29, 2010. Mr. Rao served as a Non-Executive Director of PTC India Limited from June 1, 2004 to September 28, 2011. Mr. Rao served as a Non-Executive Director of Futura Polyesters Limited until September 8, 2008 and PTC India Financial Services Limited from June 4, 2007 to September 28, 2011. He was awarded the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation fellowship to study the promotion of industries with a special emphasis on export oriented industries in Europe. He authored a book on the power sector reforms with a focus on distribution in 2003. Mr. Rao holds a Bachelor's degree in Arts from Andhra University, a Master's degree in Arts from the Andhra University and a Diploma in Systems Management from Bajaj Institute, Mumbai.

Few more clarification 1) A leading economist Narendra Jadhav  said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”    . Users can verify this statement. you will come to know that Jadhav is a notable, leading economist and the statement he has given regarding the field of expertise subject  is important. Again to verify the claim of that notable,leading economist , we can clearly see that the degree and honor received by Ambedkar support the claim. This is not something we are praising but something we are reveling the truth. In today world, WP is consider to be the source of information. It bad to limit the article on only one aspect as the contribution to nation and humanity is highly important and no one should ignore such contribution. It is we to present it , in understandable, systematic and clear way. 2)About the reliability of Abraham is not under doubt as he was expert and notable in the field of Energy and Power. Always remember that, WP is the source of information to the world, We are here to share the authentic and real information to world for there knowledge and nobody can stop us. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Following is the summery of discussion.


 * Narendra Jadhav leading educationist, eminent economist and Policy maker, well known social scientist and best-selling author. Prime minister of India has called him “a role model for the disempowered millions in India”.
 * He has served as Principal Adviser and Chief Economist in Reserve Bank of India, Chief Economic Counsellor for Afghanistan and Advisor to the Government of Ethiopia. He is one of the notable economists in the world. He has published several books on Ambedkar and Economics.
 * Qwyrxian opposed the claim by such notable economist in “Role in Economic Planning” section whereas Permknutsford supports the claim.


 * Prathipati Abraham is Non-Executive Independent Director of Gvk Power and Infrastructure Ltd. As a member of Indian Administrative Service he served in capacities at the Centre and State Governments. He is the Former Secretary Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. He held responsible executive positions in Centre and State Governments. He functioned as Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and he was the first Chairman of the State Electricity Board in the country. He was a United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Fellow on Industrial Development. He retired as Member, Union Public Service Commission. . . He has published few research articles and academic books.
 * Qwyrxian opposed the claim by Former Secretary Ministry of Power, Govt. of India in “Role in water resource and power planning” section whereas Permknutsford supports the claim.


 * “worldhistoryconnected is not a reliable source” was claimed by Qwyrxian. Whereas worldhistoryconnected is a reliable source. (WHC is free worldwide. It is published by the University of Illinois Press, and its institutional home is Hawaii Pacific University).
 * The claim was researched by Permknutsford. After a week Qwyrxian climed that it is reliable source. (BR Ambedkar talk page)


 * After looking at above sources Narendra Jadhav, Prathipati Abraham and worldhistoryconnected can be added back. They are reliable sources.Blueyarn (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blueyarn, I need to clarify something here, because both you and Premknutsford are making a common mistake: just because we have information, and that information is in a source that meets our definition of a "reliable source" does not mean that we automatically add the information to Wikipedia. That is, WP:V does not say "All information which is verifiable shall be included in Wikipedia". Rather, it's setting a minimum standard: "Only information which is verifiable shall be included in Wikipedia." There are other policies at play here, and specifically I'm arguing that including the Jadhav info violates WP:NPOV (the subpart WP:UNDUE), because it is nothing more than one person's opinions. You need to show more than "it's a reliable source". I'm not disputing, for instance, that ToI and the other newspapers that printed his opinion are "reliable". You need to show that this opinion is an important enough aspect of Ambedkar's greater life story that it deserves mention here. If we establish that it does (again, I'm not yet settled on this point), then we need to show how important it is: i.e., how much emphasis we should give it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

as we can see that the Qwyrxian having centric view and doesn't recognize the truth. He is opposing because he has to oppose. Most of the thing Qwyrxian stating is totally wrong. I think such user might harm WP to abstain the people to share their authentic and reliable knowledge to the world. Please suggest the administrator to add this valuable authentic information which is based on WP policy. If we add this, centric person may delete this with poor excuse, need to take some concrete action. Appealing to administrator to find the solution to stay away centric view people. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Premknutsford25, I'm going to ask you one last time, politely: please stop the personal attacks. If you do not, I will have to withdraw my participation here; I simply cannot waste my time engaging with someone who doesn't Please also stop try to assert the truth, which 1) you don't have an exclusive claim to, and 2) has almost nothing whatsoever with what Wikipedia does. Again, I am not disputing that Jadhav claims that Ambedkhar is the most educated economist or whatever the exact words were. I believe this is true, and I believe you have verified it in reliable sources. Instead, I am disputing that this point is simply not important enough, because it is nothing more than a single person's opinion, and you haven't shown me any evidence (that I remember) to the contrary. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, Please stop your centric view. Please try to be neutral. Neutral point of person is highly welcome not central point of view person. It is quite evident that, you are opposing because you have to oppose, such attitude is harmful to WP. Please change your centric view and try to be neutral all time. your neutral view will be highly appreciated and welcome. 1) About Exclusive claim. Now read carefully.

Dr.AMBEDKAR (1891-1956)

B.A., M.A., M.Sc., D.Sc., Ph.D., L.L.D., D.Litt., Barrister-at-Law.

B.A.(Bombay University) Bachelor of Arts,

MA.(Columbia university) Master Of Arts,

M.Sc.( London School of Economics) Master Of Science,

Ph.D. (Columbia University) Doctor of philosophy ,

D.Sc.( London School of Economics) Doctor of Science ,

L.L.D.(Columbia University) Doctor of Laws ,

D.Litt.( Osmania University) Doctor of Literature,

Barrister-at-Law (Gray's Inn, London) law qualification for a lawyer in royal court of England.

Inter 1909,Elphinstone College,Bombay Persian and English

B.A, 1912 Jan, Elphinstone College, Bombay, University of Bombay, Economics & Political Science

M.A 2-6-1915 Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, Main-Economics

Ancillaries-Sociology, History Philosophy, Anthropology, Politics

Ph.D 1917 Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, 'The National Divident of India - A Historical and Analytical Study'

M.Sc 1921 June London School of Economics, London 'Provincial Decentralization of Imperial Finance in British India'

Barrister-at- Law 30-9-1920 Gray's Inn, London Law

D.Sc 1923 Nov London School of Economics, London 'The Problem of the Rupee - Its origin and its solution' was accepted for the degree of D.Sc. (Economics).

L.L.D (Honoris Causa) 5-6-1952 Columbia University, New York For HIS achievements, Leadership and authoring the constitution of India

D.Litt (Honoris Causa) 12-1-1953 Osmania University, Hyderabad For HIS achievements, Leadership and writing the constitution of India.

Qwyrxian most of the time we found out that, you say without proper knowledge. your attitude and approach is very wrong. which is very dangerous for WP. As such attitude, you are abstaining people to share their valuable, authentic, reliable information in line with WP policy. you need to change yourself. About JADHAV claim, study that statement properly. Sorry, if look rude on you. Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's note: I am the current coordinator here at DRN.  You have been asked several times to stop making personal remarks about other editors. Such comments are not permitted here at DRN. Do not say anything about another editors biases, motives, knowledge, attitude, approach, COI, bias, or other personal characteristics. If you continue to do so, your edits here may be deleted or this filing may be closed without resolution pursuant to this policy. Please limit your remarks here to content, not editors. If you wish to pursue conduct complaints, the right place to do it is at ANI or at RFC/U, not here. (While this note is particularly directed at Premknutsford25, it applies equally to all other parties to this dispute, of course.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've been busy these past few days. Permknutsford25, I don't think accusing anyone of anything helps here. This is about looking at the content and trying to come to a compromise. You speak about harmful attitudes to WP, well, making harsh accusations like that is not conductive to a helpful and productive atmosphere.

Allow me to weigh in my opinion. I think the information should be included but within reason. This article is about one man, therefore you need multiple sources, meaning more than just two, to assert things. Otherwise Wikipedia just becomes a PR firm for any one individual. That's where undue weight comes into play. However, they are reliable sources as in it is confirmed that someone of worth and knowledge of the subject matter has indeed published said information.

Are all parties willing to craft a shorter version of the desired edit (that uses less quotes and opinion words) based on the sources provided? This would be a much shorter and concise section, no more than a paragraph, that only has objective descriptions. Such as "Jadhav, a leading economist [a citation would be needed for this claim], says that Ambedkar is a very intelligent economist and one of the first to obtain a PhD outside of India" then move on to name where that PhD came from in another sentence. Then in two or three sentences summarize his role in water, resource, and power planning. If anyone wants more details they can always refer to the sources, or perhaps someone can create an article that deals with some of Ambedkar's projects. Does this sound like a good compromise? I am just posting an Idea. Fordx12 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

, some user having objection to the statement said by jadhav, they want not to include this statement and that statement was , " A leading economist Narendra Jadhav   said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”    .", if you observe this statement, we can easily see that, we provided citation to the claim to whether jadhav is leading economist or not ? This citation says that, jadhav is leading economist. As per WP policy if we are coping any statement as it is, we have to enclosed that statement on "". we did it, so that, that statement became, A leading economist JADHAV said, that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." Again, to find the fact about this claim, when we research about the degree, honors and contribution of Ambedkar as a economist, we found out that, he (Ambedkar) did, (B.A, M.A, M.SC, D.SC, PH.D) in economic and when compare to this education with other prominent economist of INDIA, like Amartya sen - (B.A.,M.A., Ph.D), Narendra Jadhav -(B.Sc, M.A, Ph.d) ,Jagdish Bhagwati - (B.A, Ph.d),Meghnad Desai - (B.A.,M.A.,Ph.D),Montek Singh Ahluwalia - (B.A.,M.A.,M.Phil). so the claim made by Naredra Jadhav is true, and we are mentioning here because, people around world and INDIA, used WP as source of information, we are trying to provide them true and authentic information with reliable sources. One more thing. the statement we are providing on WP is  "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." If you see, this statement adhere with the WP policy, if you have any concern with this ,please discuss, as we need to provide true and reliable information to the world. And about the statement "He (Ambedkar) was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country." is not statement made by Jadhav, This statement was published in IEA NEWSLETTER The Indian Economic Association(IEA). Again about this Newsletter, it is independently research by Indian Economic Association and can be treat as reliable source. So please treat  "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." is the statement made by Jadhav and another statement '''  "He (Ambedkar) was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country." ''' made by Indian Economic Association. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , If you both agree with above explanation, we can add the draft to the main article and then close this dispute. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify. The following sentence, "A leading economist JADHAV said that, "Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times." shouldn't be used. Saying "Highest educated...of all times" is highly opinionated and not suitable and runs straight into WP:NOV and WP:UNDUE issues, even if quoting someone. It's an issue of wieght to quote just one economist making that specific claim. What I proposed was to say something like: "Economist Jadhav has said that Ambedkar is a highly intelligent economist (cite). He took part in  and is one of the first Indians to get a PhD outside of India (cite). Administrator of Abraham believes that Ambedkar is  (cite)." This is after all a proposal for a compromise. It's short, it's not misleading, and it provides the information Permknutsford25 wants without blowing things out of proportion to thus alleviate the concerns shared by others. So is this a fair proposal? If not, we could consider other options. Please comment Fordx12 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for quick and valuable response. Please see the updated draft after applying your suggestion, In below draft, I tried to correct the disputed line. As other thing in the articles having no objection as explanation was provided. Please go through the draft, I added some citation from research paper to support the contribution on post war economic .., once and  is happy with this draft, i will add the updated draft to main article. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(==Role in Economic Planning ==

A leading economist Narendra Jadhav  claim that Ambedkar is highly intelligent economist having highest qualification among Indian economist. . "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."

Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice, woman empowerment along with economic planning, water resource, and electric power development.

Member of Planning commission and National advisory council claim that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution and Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.

Role in water resource and power planning
“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour, Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively. “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948.

Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. " Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago.


 * Nobel laureate Sen also made similar claim "Ambedkar is my Father in Economics.....His contribution in the field of economics is marvelous and will be remembered forever..!" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Role_in_the_formation_of_Reserve_Bank_of_India ]. In short many other economists made similar claims. Above is fair proposal. Premknutsford25's contribution should be edited again.Blueyarn (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The section "Role in Economic Planning" has two quotes and one important sentence. This is incomplete section. There are lot many research articles published on his economic work. Gold rate. exchange rate, economic development, Brtish economy etc. this was his economic work. You should edit it well from [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf ]. And update
 * Remove over citing. for example, Narendra Jadhav has 3 citations. Keep only one citation of government. This is same for above many sentences. And same for "Role in water resource and power planning" section. Keep effective and quality citations.
 * Dont quote sentences like " "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."" Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding specifically Jadhav, I'd be willing to accept a sentence added to the B. R. Ambedkar section, probably as the very last sentence, which said something like "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist, has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times (full ref )." I don't think that any more is reasonable. Sen's words are basically meaningless, and while they might arguably be appropriate on his page, if there's some sort of "Influences" section, it doesn't belong here. And, to be clear, I do not believe this deserves a section of its own, as that's pretty much a solid WP:UNDUE violation.
 * I still strongly object to Abraham, and would not be willing to entertain the matter until we saw a solid decision at WP:RSN that it met WP:RS for this specific information (note that I am very specifically saying "for this information"--I'm not question generally reliability, only his reliability to make these types of judgments about Ambedkar). Once we have that, then we can consider the matter of WP:UNDUE and how much of Abraham's ideas are worth referencing.
 * Obviously, there's a lot more to consider (several other sections proposed by Premknutsford), but it seems easier to me to see if we have consensus on this point first. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh...I didn't realize that totally inappropriate quote from Sen is already in the article. Well, I guess we have to add that to the list of things to discuss.
 * Also, to the DRN volunteers--can either I or you add a notice to the article's talk page stating that there is a discussion going on here, just in case there are other people watchlisting the article who might have some useful input. Or would that be a problem per WP:CANVAS? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, to the DRN volunteers--can either I or you add a notice to the article's talk page stating that there is a discussion going on here, just in case there are other people watchlisting the article who might have some useful input. Or would that be a problem per WP:CANVAS? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: I have just removed the last two edits made in this discussion (this one and this one) because they discussed conduct. Please feel free to restore them, but only after removing all comments about other editors' conduct or characteristics. Restoring them without editing them or continuing to make remarks about other editors will cause this listing to be closed. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * After having consensus on JADHAV sentence we will add the Jadhav claim, I am strongly taking objection on Qwyrxian opinion. I strongly support to have a separate section . After study i found out that ,there are several research paper available to show the work done by ambedkar on various issue like Land reform, Agriculture development, Economic development, Energy and power sector contribution, View on Taxation, India's currency problem,contribution to Woman empowerment . Any one can find this research paper on this link, ((http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf, http://www.dalitstudies.org.in/wp/0904.pdf ,http://164.100.47.134/plibrary/ebooks/DR%20Ambedkar/%28sno24%29Ambedkar1.pdf, http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/7d5370343c544b144b6e6a691c7c2745.pdf, http://www.euroasiapub.org/IJRESS/July2013/3.pdf, http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/86838e6b69cd679371984c267b8faad7.pdf, http://www.ambedkar.org/research/DRAmbedkarsviewsonAgricultureIncomeTax.pdf, http://www.ijser.org/researchpaper%5CAmbedkars-Notion-of-Social-Justice-A-Different-Perspective.pdf and many more. so we will have Separate section for this as contribution (Land reform, Agriculture development, Economic development, Energy and power sector contribution, View on Taxation, India's currency problem} to these area Which is highly considerable , but we will provide the contribution in short and systematic way which will be under WP policy. But for now, we add this under discussion short draft then we can work on other section (Needless to say that, Every contribution must adhere to WP policy).

About Abraham, as provided already, Abraham claim was also supported by GOVT of INDIA. Please find all the supported link to Abraham claim. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ,http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm, http://www.mail-archive.com/zestcaste@yahoogroups.com/msg02253.html, day by day Abraham claim is supported, at recent event in Nagpur on 13 oct 2013, Union Agriculture Minister of INDIA, Sharad pawar also support the Abraham claim in front of millions people and also at convocation ceremony in some reputed universities, http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730,  http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-6.htm, http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html,http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/44E5.%20Dr.%20Ambedkar%20As%20The%20Member%20of%20Ex.Gov.Gen.Council%20QA.htm,

All claim made by Qwyrxian can be consider as meaningless. Let me clear you, Amartya sen is Nobel prize winner economist having INDIA's highest award and very highly respected as for as economist is concern in the world, who admitted that, he (Amartya sen) learnt lot of things from Ambedkar. I very strongly suggest to add this updated draft to the main article as it adhere to WP policy. Once i receive the okay from majority of the user, i will add the updated draft. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Premknutsford, I could respond to quite a number of your points, but would it be possible to focus on one thing at a time? If you really want, we can simultaneously handle multiple disputes, but personally I've always found it easier to work step by step, gaining consensus (or not) for each part.
 * If so, let's continue to focus on Jadhav. The reason why this shouldn't have a separate section is that Jadhav's quotation focuses on Ambedkar's education--not on what he "did" as an economist, but on how well-educated he was as an economist. Thus, it belongs in the Education section, not as a separate section.
 * If not (if you want to try to handle everything at once), we should probably make separate subsections and lay out each of the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * yes agree, first we will add this under discussion draft to main article then we will work on other section. First Jadhav, Jadhav claim about Ambedkar education but, if we observe the statement, it say that ,Ambedkar is highest educated Indian 'economist' of all times. As we see Jadhav had point out Ambedkar as a Economist, see we consider to add this claim of a leading economist in Economic section. As you know that, Economic section should deals with Economic contribution so we need to add about Ambedkar Economic qualification. as after this sentence we reveal the contribution of this economic scholar to INDIA and humanity. we try to start this Economic section with Ambedkar economic qualification then focus on the work done by him (and we kept the contribution as minimum as possible as contribution to the Nation and humanity is very highly appreciated ).

Second, Abhraham, As provided link, we can see that, Govt of INDIA, Some state Govt , as well as Union minister of INDIA along with other reliable books also support the claim made by Abhraham and Govt of INDIA has also said the same thing which Abhraham claim. so we provided the true picture here about the statement written by taking reference from Abhraham. All the statement proved to be true and authentic, so no need to play with it.

Third, Amartya sen is nobel prize winner economist who also having INDIA'S highest civilian award, is a notable person.

I strongly believe that, without wasting much more time (as we spend very good time) we should add the updated draft to the main article so that we can work on other section. As among four of us, (if three user out of four of us) say 'no' for addition of this article as a separate section, i will not add , otherwise, it will be consider as, majority is okay to add this information. Thanks ....Premknutsford25 (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Following is the summery of discussion.
 * "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist,[ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm ] has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times )." should be in B. R. Ambedkar section
 * It should be added in the education section as it is about Ambedkar's Education Lets finish discussion about Jadhav now. This proposal is agreed by all.


 * worldhistoryconnected is the reliable source. This discussion is also finished. This proposal is agreed by all.


 * What you have to say about Abraham ?  I agree Abraham as a reliable citation  [ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ], [ http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm ].Blueyarn (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The section "Role in Economic Planning" should be created. [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/fd35f634ca18de28948a10a1c5af368c.pdf ], [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/7d5370343c544b144b6e6a691c7c2745.pdf ], [ http://www.ambedkar.org/research/DRAmbedkarsviewsonAgricultureIncomeTax.pdf ]and update in the article.
 * The section "Role in Land Reform and Agricultural Development" should be created. [ http://www.euroasiapub.org/IJRESS/July2013/3.pdf ], [ http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/86838e6b69cd679371984c267b8faad7.pdf ] and update in the article.
 * [ http://164.100.47.134/plibrary/ebooks/DR%20Ambedkar/%28sno24%29Ambedkar1.pdf ] this is about life and important
 * Other citations should be added in various sections
 * Dont quote sentences like " "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."" Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont quote sentences like " "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country."" Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We should wait for a response from WP:RSN regarding Abraham before we move on. Qwyrxian does have legitimate concerns. Is the above from WP:RSN?. @ I would like to see if you could consent to an RfC on content once the final draft of the compromise is finished. That way you can ask other editors about some of your concerns regarding weight. I don't thing the page should be edited until concensus is reached by all parties involved. Does this seem fair? I don't like the idea of "Four out of Five" vote, it can still easily become another dispute where one out of five editors (or whatever total) feels like they are being ganged up on. There is no need to rush to edit any article unless there are pressing issues related to things like BLP. Are the above bullet points posted by Blueyarn agreed by all parties? Any objections?Fordx12 (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No time today, but quickly: 1) Prem, please stop saying that we need to add the draft to the article. I have major objections to various parts. The whole point of DR is to get consensus, not just keep saying "i'm right, now let me put this in." 2) Fordx12, I will agree to an RfC, but would like to make sure we draft it together here first. I've had bad experiences with non-neutral RfC's before, and would hate to have to halt a running RfC because it started badly. Also, I don't think we're quite ready for an RfC, as we're already starting to find points of agreement, so we should get those locked in first, if it turns out we fundamentally disagree then rfc on everything will be needed. 3) At the moment, I believe we've agreed to talk only about Jadhav, so let's do just that. I believe the only question pending right now is where to put it. Could we, perhaps, agree to put it into the education section for now, and then later once we decide if we even need an econ section (I'm actually hoping we don't, and hoping, in fact, to make a major consolidation on already existing sections in the article), then consider moving it there later? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ,,, Not agree with Qwyrxian at all, 1) About JADHAV, Agree with Blueyarn. 2) Abraham, experience administrator also said that, the sources as reliable again(can verify in teahouse), to support the claim of Abraham as per WP policy, As provided earlier the url, which also support the Abraham claim. Govt of India also strongly support the Abraham claim, Union Minister of India also said the same thing which Abraham claim, citation also provided for that (As the claim made be Abraham was related to Govt of India). If someone has to oppose because he has to oppose then , nobody can help that person. This updated draft is written as per WP policy. Rather that questioning political way , we can work in more sensible way. i strongly believe that discussion should be result oriented not political. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ,,, Please read the below latest updated draft and discuss on this latest updated draft at this point only, then will we work on other section. This draft fully adhere to WP policy. Request to talk about this draft only, please ignore previous draft as the improvement is applied to this latest draft, After carefully reading and verification of citation. you all will find the draft, you all wanted. As agree Jadhav claim will go to Education section. so moved that part from this draft, About Abraham, other reliable claim of Abraham, lots of other reliable source are also provided to support that particular statement. Please note that, only Abraham claim is not there. you will find some very authentic government portal along with reliable books citation also provided. In short, Abhraham, Govt of India, State Govt and reliable books citation is provided as per WP policy.

(==Role in Economic Planning ==

Ambedkar is the First Indian to complete the Ph.d in Economics from outside of the homecountry. He contributed a great deal to the formulation of India's post-war economic development plan in general, particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice, woman empowerment along with economic planning , water resource, and electric power development. Member of Planning commission and National advisory council claim that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution and Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.

Role in water resource and power planning
“In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour, Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively.

“Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948.

Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. It has been observed that, contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago.

Premknutsford25 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I almost don't know what to say here--the first sentence of that draft is such a ridiculous WP:NPOV violation that I can't be bothered to read any further. There is no case where we would ever, ever, ever have a sentence stating in Wikipedia's voice that someone's contributions "can be consider[ed] very important and profound particularly in field[s] of...." It is fairly evident that you either don't understand or don't accept our policies. I'm going to leave this draft alone, ask you to re-read WP:NPOV, then go back and look at the entire draft and see how to change not only that sentence but also ensure the rest of the draft also conforms to policies. This draft is not even a place to start. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

you can read it again. some typing mistake corrected. First while reading, i hope everyone will read in neutral point of view then we will talk about policies. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have edited and added Role in Economic Planning section without Jadhav and Abraham citations.
 * "Narendra Jadhav, a leading Indian economist,[ http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/history/index.php?about=narendra.htm ] has said that Ambedkar was "the highest educated Indian economist of all times )." should be in B. R. Ambedkar section
 * It should be added in the education section as it is about Ambedkar's Education Can we finish this discussion about Jadhav now. This proposal is agreed by all.
 * What you have to say about Abraham ? what are your comments on Abraham ?  I agree Abraham as a reliable citation  [ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444 ], [ http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol9p30a.htm ].


 * , and
 * 1) Do you agree Jadahv's quote in education section? (Answer in YES or NO)
 * 2) Do you agree worldhistoryconnected is reliable citation? (Answer in YES or NO)
 * 3) Do you agree Abraham as reliable citation ? (Answer in YES or NO)'''


 * Lets sort out this disputeBlueyarn (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes, we can add it immediately to the education section and I think there are no objections.
 * 2) It depends on what you are trying to verify with it. No source is reliable for everything. I'll have to get to that when I review the rest of Prem's draft.
 * 3) No. And those 2 government sources you sited are useless for us, because they're both WP:PRIMARY documents.
 * I'll try to review the draft today or tomorrow, but no promises. I have to handle my watchlist quickly today and then go back to real life. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)



1)YES, I agree on Jadhav quote in education section.

2) YES ,I agree worldhistory is reliable citation, as we use to support the statement written in the latest updated draft related to worldhistory remarks.

3)YES, both of these govt portal provide strong support to the abraham claim, there is few more reliable sources which support Abraham claim, please have a look at , , http://dnasyndication.com/dna/dna_english_news_and_features/Pawar-lauds-Ambedkars-role-as-power-minister/DNPUN58730, , http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/saha/sahanew.htm. Please take a note that, not only Abraham claim the role of Ambedkar in Water and Energy development but also other reliable books and reliable article and news (as mentioned the latest updated draft) mentioned the Role played by Ambedkar in Water and Energy development. Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * , I have edited and added Role in Economic Planning section without Jadhav and Abraham citations.
 * I have added quote by Jadhav as agreed by all.Blueyarn (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How many times everyone should tell you about copyright violations? Your drafts has few copyright. Read Wikipedia policies of WP:COPYRIGHT.
 * Remove over citing.  Draft "Role in water resource and power planning" section again. Keep effective and quality citations.
 * Dont quote sentences like “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” or “waged work in modern industry”. Such sentences should be edited.Blueyarn (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies to the other participants. Based on the last several days and looking forward to my real life commitments for the next several weeks, I don't think I'm going to be able to constructively contribute to this discussion. While I'll still have some time to commit to Wikipedia, it's going to be in smaller chunks and focus on simpler things; I'm not going to have the time needed to look carefully at the sources and analyze, which I believe is necessary for me to be useful here. Consider me as having withdrawn from this dispute, and feel free to proceed however you think best. At some point, I'd love to come back to this article and completely overhaul it (the entire organizational structure is flawed, in my opinion) but that's many months away at best. Best of luck and sorry if my partial involvement made this take longer than necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Early Show
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

MegaStarLV will not allow anyone to edit the lead-in sentence of 'The Early Show' to the correct tense. According to him, WP:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines states that TV shows should begin their lead in with, for example, "The Simpsons**is** an animated comedy"... because the TV show, even cancelled, still exists. Myself, and several others (as you can see from the page's history) disagree, as a show of this type is in fact no longer in existence. I explained to MegaStar and also on the talk page of the article that unlike television shows that can be syndicated (which the MOS in my opinion is solely geared toward), news shows do not exist in any tangible medium after they air; They are first-run, and they do not air again. Also, they are not available on DVD or some other tangible medium for public consumption. For this reason and all other intensive purposes, the show does not exist anymore. That's why we keep changing the "is" to "was", as seen in the TV news show article Rock Center with Brian Williams. For some reason, MegaStar is not interested in correcting that article, but rather hovering over this one and making sure that one word does not change. I know that this is not exactly the correct place for the following statement, but looking on his talk page and from the comments made to me, he is pretty rude about this edit and has always revered it no matter what. Thank you for talking a look at this! I just wanted an unbiased opinion because, as I said, from looking at the history page of the article, other editors have changed the lead, while he always changes it back, so there must be some form of consensus from other users that "was" is the correct tense to use. Happy editing all!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried twice to edit the page, I also placed a discussion section on the article's talk page, asking anyone to not edit the article until there is a third opinion, as well as posting on his own personal talk page, but he reverted the article anyway.

How do you think we can help?

Take a look at the MOS for television. I believe news shows should be treated differently. There is no explicit directions for dealing with first run, news magazines or shows and I think that is the fundamental problem. We all know The Early Show is no longer on the air, but according to the MOS it still is. The article needs to say "was" in the lead in first sentence. Also, allow MegaStarLV to understand that sometimes MOS rules are broken under certain circumstances.

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

The Early Show discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan
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 (Dawud) wrote most of the "Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan" article. This history can be divided into a Japanese era (1895-1945), a White Russian-dominated era (1949-1970's), and a contemporary (post-2000) era in which several rival Orthodox jurisdictions have established missionary churches. Some editor, or combination of editors (I suspect several of being the same person, in view of the obscurity of the subject and the similarity of their edits), have then been erasing the half of the article that covers the post-2000 period--i.e., the period characterized by the most controversy--leaving only the beginning. The most plausible explanation is that the other editor(s) belong(s) to one of these churches (perhaps he is even a priest), and desires to keep embarassing or controversial material related to himself or his church off of Wikipedia. I am at a loss for how to prevent this person or persons from doing this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I initiated a discussion on the talk page, and waited several weeks. Maproom responded, but in a perfunctory manner.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I would appreciate advice on this point.

Summary of dispute by jonjon2013
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with user Maproom. The article is very disproportionate on the post 2000 era. In addition, the discussion of the alleged Greek drug dealer has nothing to do with the topic of Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan that the page is supposed to be about. On the contrary, it feels more like a personal attack to the priest (Fr Jonah). It is also worth mentioning that the reported drug dealer was acquitted of all of his charges by the Greek courts. Lastly, the link provided on the dealer's name, Christodoulos, links to the late archbishop of Athens, Greece, a completely different person than the alleged drug dealer. Another issue is the discussion along the topic of the excommunication of Fr. Kirill and his parishioner. The facts are not presented objectively there, since they do not give the whole account of the Metropolitan of Hong Kong. Unless the article were to present all of the arguments of the Metropolitan, it cannot be objective. More importantly, the whole discussion there seems like pursuing a real-world dispute. As user Maproom also mentioned, Wikipedia's articles purpose is to inform the readers, and not to pursue such real-world disputes. By the way, in response to Dawud's suspicion, I would like to say that I am *not* the same person as user Maproom. The fact that we might share some opinions does not make us the same person.

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

Summary of dispute by Maproom
The history of the Orthodox Church in Taiwan goes back over 100 years. At present most of the article is about a dispute, starting 10 years ago, between the leaders of the Greek and the Russian Orthodox churches there. I believe that this is disproportionate, and I said so on the talk page. I removed much of this material, but it has been restored. In particular, an account of the arrest of a Greek drug dealer, without any claim that he represents the Greek Orthodox church, appears to have very little relevance to the subject of the article.

I am reminded of the article Tecoma, Victoria, most of which is about an ongoing dispute over whether a McDonalds should be built in the town. In both cases, an article is being used to pursue a real-world dispute, rather than to inform readers. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Orthodox Christianity in Taiwan discussion
Hello, I am Iselilja and will try to mediate here if there is no objections. Having reviewed the section in dispute, I notice that it to a large degree involves living persons which means that WP:BLP applies. Good sourcing is extremely important for all coverage of living persons, especially if the material about the persons can be perceived as negative. We will only include conflicts etc. in articles if it has been covered in independent reliable sources, meaning that we will not cover conflicts if the sources are mainly homesites, blogs, press releases etc. Do all parties agree with this? So question for User:Dawud: The paragraphs about the conflict involving Fr. Kirill seems to rely on only self-published sources and not sources from news organizations etc. Do you agree that this is the case? And: What is the relationship between Apostolos Vavylis and the Orthodox community in Taiwan that makes the story about him relevant for the article on the latter? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On the question of proportionality, I would love to see additional material added on the earlier eras. Unfortunately, we are limited to what we have. Naturally there is more information about the post-2000 era. Given that, I would rather have more complete information about the post-2000 churches, even if it makes the section larger. After all, if the article cannot describe the situation of Orthodoxy in Taiwan today, then it is not good for very much. Also, given the presence of multiple Orthodox jurisidctions (i.e. OMHKSEA and Moscow), it may be that the details will inevitably be more complicated than in earlier, more unified eras.


 * One poster complained about the lack of detail given to the OCA church in Taizhong (Taichung), a church about which I know nothing. I would love to have this information myself (even an address).


 * The paragraph about the conflict between OMHKSEA and Fr. Kirill comes from OMHKSEA's official website. There were two such statements, one of them being the text of a formal notice of excommunication of Fr. Kirill and a parishioner, Seraphim William Davidson. To my knowledge, neither Fr. Kirill nor any other Russian authority has formally responded (and I do not expect them to do so in the future). The fact that Orthodoxy in Taiwan is presently divided between (at least) two distinct groups, one of which has excommunicated the other, is surely noteworthy (I guarantee you that the participants find it noteworthy), and the facts are sufficiently established by the links provided.


 * Apostolos Vavylis (or Vavilis) has a connection with Taiwan, in the sense that certain Taiwan "friends" (later revealed to be Fr. Jonah--he is named in that Greek-language academic article) helped him evade INTERPOL, e.g. by helping him acquire false identity documents. (He was finally caught traveling from Thailand to Italy.) Fr. Jonah was never charged, but Vavylis certainly was (AFAIK he is still in prison on various charges, including drug dealing and racketeering). Archbishop Christodoulos died shortly afterwards. Anyway, the upshot of all this is that Taiwan's then-only Orthodox priest was proven to have participated (albeit tangentially) in the biggest scandal in Orthodox Church in recent years. Surely this is noteworthy. If it is negative, well, then perhaps Fr. Jonah should have thought about that before getting involved with organized crime.Dawud (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the conflict between OMHKSEA and Fr. Kirill: The only sources here are from OMHKSEA and it involves claims about Fr. Kirill. This is not acceptable per BLP: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties". So, I don't see how we can include this conflict based on one party's presentation of it. I have no doubt that this conflict is noteworthy for the Orthodox community itself, but that is not the standard for what is notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. For Wikipedia, notability depends on coverage in independent reliable sources, typically newspapers etc. If you think otherwise, I will suggest you bring this part of the dispute to the BLP noticeboard. About Fr. Jonah: I also here see BLP concerns. You say he is proven to have participated in the Vavylis scandal. But is this really proven when Fr Jonah has not been charged or convicted of anything? We have to be very careful about making edits that imply a Living Person has been involved in a crime or scandal and should only include it if it has been well covered in reliable sources.I cannot read the academic article that is in Greek. Can you translate what the document says about Fr. Jonah (the most relevant part). And who has written the paper? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, there are no current guidelines regarding nations and religions, unfortunately. but in general the way I have seen other sources cover such topics is basically with the following construction: (1) history, (2) current organization and numbers, in this case probably structural organization, like (if applicable) the archbishops(s) and archeparchies or archdioceses, number of dioceses and parishes, and the approximate current number of members (3) local practices (national observations of specific holidays, for instance), (4) some discussion (which varies a lot) on the role the group plays in ecumenical matters in the country, (5) local practices (do Muslim women wear the chador and that sort of "local" color), (6) notable individuals (if any) from the church and religion, like theologians, saints, etc., (6) other things, including perhaps really prominent tourism/pilgrimage affairs, buildings, works of art (maybe), controversy and other things. I'm guessing in this case the Fr. Kirill matter would fall in the 6th field, but getting together some material like that I discuss above, maybe roughly following the model of the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices and any other reference books which have articles relating to similar national organization of churches articles, might be at least a starting point. John Carter (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The orthodox community in Taiwan is very small. Last estimate was 200 persons in 1965. If I am correct in my understanding, there is a split betweeen the Greek church(Fr Jonah) and the Russian church (Fr Kirill). So, an oversight over which churches/congregations that are operating today will of course be fine. This was partly done in the disputed section (now edited out), and some of the organisational stuff be edited in again; but in my opinion it should be cleaned for unsourced (or primary sourced) stuff related to conflicts and for trivia.
 * Pinging User:Maproom and User:jonjon2013. Do you have any comments to what has been said so far? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the way this is being handled. Thank you, Iselilja, for your efforts. Maproom (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also happy with the way this is being handled. Just to clarify: you are suggesting on removing the conflicted parts of the article, e.g. the Apostolos Vavylis issue and the discussion around the split? Thanks for your help Iselilja! Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting removing most of the conflicted material. Below is my suggestion for the most that can reasonably be retained of it (it still gives what I consider undue weight to the events of the last 13#4 years). Maproom (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Global era (2000-present)
In 2000, a Greek hieromonk, Fr. Jonah (Mourtos) of Osiou Gregoriou monastery (Mount Athos), arrived, under the auspices of the recently-created Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia (OMHKSEA, f. 1996, and affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarch), and with financial backing from the Kosmas Aitolos Missionary Society of Greece. A small regular congregation of perhaps 30 people formed as the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church (Taipei), a.k.a. the Orthodox Church in Taiwan. It originally met in hotels and borrowed Catholic church buildings, then in a rented storefront in Taipei's Tianmu district, before moving to a private apartment. The congregation has included Russians, East Europeans, and Chinese and Western converts. Liturgy is conducted in English, with parts translated into Chinese, Russian, and/or Greek. A satellite group, led by a lay reader, has been meeting in Taizhong.

In 2012, Archbishop Mark of Yegorievsk, head of the Russian church's Office for Institutions Abroad, "reactivated" the (1901) Christ the Savior parish, apparently in response to numerous requests from Russians living in Taiwan. The following year, the Church of the Elevation of the Cross, aka the Taiwan Orthodox Church, was formed as a metochion of the Moscow Patriarchate, with Russo-Canadian hieromonk Fr. Kirill (Shkarbul) as its first resident priest. It also meets in a private apartment. Liturgy is conducted in Russian, Chinese, and English.

Bishop Nektarios (Tsilis) of Hong Kong (OMHKSEA) responded by excommunicating Fr. Kirill and one of his parishioners, both of whom had formerly attended the OMHKSEA mission church, on the charge of uncanonical behavior and "ethno-phyletism." [6] At issue is whether the Moscow Patriarchate has the right to establish parishes outside of Russia, in what OMHKSEA considers to be territory under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

In Taiping District, Taichung, there is said to be a house church belonging to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).[citation needed] If so, it would constitute a third Orthodox jurisdiction on the island.


 * I'm generally happy with the above version. However, I'm not sure if the discussion around the excommunication of Fr. Kirill should be included; I'm saying this because of an earlier comment by Iselilja, where it was mentioned that including the OMHKSEA-Fr. Kirill conflict is not acceptable per BLP. Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. So let's lose the third paragraph of the above. Maproom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the suggestion. I think it would be best to leave out the third paragraph, although I understand why you might want to mention the territory dispute. But we should be careful about writing about conflicts that have not been covered in independent sources (newspapers etc), especially if it involves Living persons . In my personal opinion some of the information about where the meetings have taken place can also be shortened, but that's just my personal taste. I believe an underlying issue here is that the community is so small that not much are written about them in papers and so. And then there isn't so much for Wikipedia to include either. I wouldn't worry to much about undue weight, as long as the information is neutral; besides some of this deals with the contemporary situation, and it's normal that we focus more on the contempary than the history. Might be time to ping User:Dawud again to here his opinion of the above suggestion. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that we have no argument about including basic information on the several Orthodox churches on the island. So that is welcome progress.


 * On the Fr. Jonah / Apostolos Vavilis connection, I am still waiting for my friend to translate the relevant passages of that article (written, I believe, by a law professor). Also, Fr. Jonah entered a written statement to the court which someone may yet succeed in getting ahold of. It seems, however, that the stance now being proposed is this information would be irrelevant to the article, even if documented by reliable sources. I am on the fence about this. I admit that the connection seems not to have affected the churches in question, or Taiwan, in any appreciable way. On the other hand, the Taiwan-Vavilis connection has been mentioned, in passing, in the international press (some in English), without naming Fr. Jonah directly.


 * On the inter-jurisdictional dispute, the fact that the dispute exists is to my mind demonstrated by the two announcements of it on the OMHKSEA website. (Wikipedia would not be affirming a website-based claim about a third party, i.e. that the Russians have behaved uncanonically, but reporting the testimony of OMKHSEA about their own actions.) The fact that the two churches are out of communion with one another is a crucial fact about Orthodoxy in Taiwan.Dawud (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the point that it is of interest that the two churches are Out of communion with each other, and as long as we focuses on churches rather than persons, the information is less sensitive. Whether we should include it may depend on how clear-cut vs. messy the situation is. I usually prefer to use primary sources only for basic information that is clear-cut and not needs much interpretation etc. But I am open to others perspective here. I don't think Fr Jonah's statement to the court can be used as a source for Wikipedia, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Regards, 18:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The nature of the disagreement seems clear-cut to me: OMHKSEA has announced that it objects to the establishment of the Moscow-affiliated church, on the grounds that this constitutes ethno-phyletism and is uncanonical (due to jurisdictional issues). I suppose it is not crucial to specify that Fr. Kirill was excommunicated by OMHKSEA.


 * In that case, can we agree to include basic information about the two (or three) churches; to omit the paragraph about Fr. Jonah / Vavylis / the Greek scandal; and to abbreviate the section on the dispute?Dawud (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer. From what I can tell of the discussion in the last few interchanges, it appears that there's a solutiopn being formed without any assistance of a DRN volunteer. I'd like to suggest that this negotiation/concensus building happen back on the article's talk page and close down the discussion here. Pending significant objection, I intend to close this discussion in 72 hours. Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Hasteur, thanks for your message. I mainly agree with Dawud's suggestion; however, I'm still skeptical as to whether the whole excommunication issue/dispute should be included at all. This is because if this part were to be included, then one would have to mention other things about Fr. Kirill and his parishioner that are mentioned in the OMHSHEA press release; but in that case we'd fall back to the whole argument about sensitive information regarding biographies on living persons (Living persons). So I'd be inclined to suggest removing any discussion on this dispute. Regards, User:jonjon2013 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.116.161 (talk)