Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 8

Lexi Thompson


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

User:WilliamJE undid a large chunk of content on this page. User:Crunch, who created most, but not all, of that content, reverted the change charging bad faith and asking that changes of this scope be brought to the Discussion page. User:WilliamJE refused to bring the issue to the Discussion page to try to bring in more editors and a brief edit war ensued with some discussion taking place at User talk:WilliamJE. The site as of this minute is in place with User:WilliamJE's last edit.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

WilliamJE has previously been involved in other disputes involving golf pages, with many of the regular golf article editors. Some of this is documented on his Talk page. As a case in point, see this: Post from WilliamJE on my (Crunch's) Talk page addressing edits I have made in the past that he supposed had to fix and addressing me in an unprofessional and rude manner.
 * (me)
 * (me)


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

Not yet.


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

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

1. Encouraged WillamJE to discuss the change on the article's Discussion page.


 * How do you think we can help?

What can we do to solve this problem? I think the change should be brought to the Discussion page so consensus can be reached. What can we do to facilitate that?

Crunch (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I know that Crunch discussed the issue on WilliamJE's user page, but there is no discussion of the issue on Talk:Lexi Thompson. I know crunch said he encouraged WilliamJE to start a discussion, so why didn't Crunch just start a discussion along the lines of "I readded the information, and here is my reasoning why."? It seems like the best thing to do would be start a discussion there so the other editors on that article could weigh in on the issue. If you don't get enough responses that way, then take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf, where editors who work on a lot of articles on pro golfers could say "yes, amateur losses should be listed that way" or "no, they shouldn't be listed that way". If your belief is found to be the consensus, and WilliamJE still keeps reverting, then some other action can be taken. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmyers is spot on about this. This board really needs to see that engagement (even if it's a talk page discussion that has been out there for 10 days) has been attempted first before we weigh in on the topic. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe this dispute could have been sorted out through more discussion on the article talk page. Looking at the discussion on WilliamJE's user page, however, it looks like it was a good move to open this up to third-party input. This dispute looks to be about whether the results from Lexi Thompson's professional record outside of her Tour membership are suitable for inclusion in the article. Crunch seems to be arguing that it is suitable, but WilliamJE seems to be arguing that these results are not of great consequence, and tantamount to trivia. I can't find any specific guideline on what kind of results to include in golf articles, so in the absence of this, I think filing a request for comments on the article talk page may be the best way forward here. You could also advertise the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf. I would note also that it is possible to collapse the table, if that would help the two of you reach a compromise about its inclusion. Let me know what you think about this. All the best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The table in question is either trivia or already covered in other parts of the article.


 * 1 Approximately half the results are minor league golf tournaments. Minor league sports results aren't notable with the exception of Thompson's one victory which is listed in her professional wins section.


 * 2 Thompson's LPGA Tournament results are included in her LPGA Summary box or her win box. Active pro golfers have a box where there results are summarized, plus boxes for wins and playoff results(A playoff loss is notable). Golfers from Tiger Woods down to the journeyman pro with one career PGA Tour win don't have their results listed from week to week event to event etc etc. A win and playoff box and a yearly summary is considered sufficient by golf editors not just myself. The narrative parts of the article can be used for pointing out other noteworthy happenings that the other boxes don't sufficiently provide for. I add things to golfer articles all the time things like- He was the 18 and 36 hole leader at the 19?? PGA Championship before going on finish tied for 19th. See Gary Hallberg and [[Jeff Mitchell (golfer)}Jeff Mitchell) for examples


 * Crunch will raise the point that this kind of table is present in articles on Michelle Wie and Todd Fujiawra. I'll argue they shouldn't be there either. Is a golfer missing the cut notable? 70 or so golfers have this happen to them at most PGA Tour and LPGA Tour events. Is a golfer finishing T31st or 10 shots back notable? It's all WP:recentism or sports results which I'll get to in a moment. Ms. Thompson is a celebrity because of the golf talent she has at her age. She has one major league professional win, there are hundreds of golfers with just as many or more and some of them are quite young also Do they all warrant coverage in such minutaie?


 * Thompson's overall results are covered in the other sections of the article and in the long narrative, mostly written by Crunch.


 * 2 The strongest argument against the table is WP:What wikipedia is not or namely the section on an indiscriminate collection of information. A table of all golf results fits the build. Where do we say enough is enough? When Ms. Thompson retires?- William 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Opening up a request for comments seems like a good next step, including the option to collapse the table. I'll do that. Can you also tell me what can be done about User_talk:WilliamJE's repeated personal attacks against me and against [[User_talk:Tewapack? Check out WilliamJE's, my, and Tewapack's talk pages for more, as well as the edit summaries he's been leaving around the site attacking us. He seems to be angry that he article's need cleaning up. --Crunch (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One other question. Is there any way I can put the disputed content back in the article while the RFC is open so people can actually see it? I'm afraid if I do this, WilliamJE will just delete it again. Posting it on the Discussion page might be unwieldy. --Crunch (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend taking concerns you have over personal attacks to WP:WQA. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this. WQA should get you the outside input that you need here. About the disputed content - just use a permanent link. Here's one I made earlier. ;) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What does Real Time MRI have to do with the dispute over Lexi Thompson? I think this is in the wrong place. --Crunch (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my fault. I moved it into a new discussion. Martin.uecker (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan


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

User:Menikure and User:Van de Kemp are two pro-turkish users vandalizing and deleting well-sourced information on the Azerbaijan page

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

i've discussed the issue on talk pages of both users, vandalism and many edit reverts continued


 * How do you think we can help?

block both users from pages regarding Armenia, Turkey, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan

Captain armenia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * In the article Azerbaijan This user is adding unsubstantiated POV material and engaging in edit wars. Menikure (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)another dispute here
 * This user is deleting important well-sourced material and engaging in edit wars, this user opposes the independence and limited recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and keeps his pro-turkish side of view. This user denies well-accepted facts. Captain armenia (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view must be reflected. Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto country that is internationally unrecognized by any internationally recognized country including Armenia and the United Nations. And the 3 countries the user mentions that recognize it, are also de facto countries that are internationally unrecognized by the United Nations: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistiria. Van de Kemp (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and thank you for posting here! I notice that there's no discussion about the material being reverted on Talk:Azerbaijan. I'm afraid you really need to talk about this on a talk page before we can deal with it here. Take it back to the talk page, and try and work out what it is about the material that you are disagreeing on, and remember to base your arguments on Wikipedia policies. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop
Dispute overview
 * Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Kainaw has been repeatedly posting personal attacks against me, first on my own talk page where a civil discussion was winding down and, then on his own talk page, first at a section started by a third party as a request to stop the personal attacks , and finally at a section with my own request for him to stop  and.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

Discussed it in the section where he first posted the first personal attack, then a third party created a new section on his own talk page to discuss this, and finally I tried to resolve it in a new section of his talk page which I created.


 * How do you think we can help?

By helping Kainaw to cool down and by stopping the stream of personal attacks against me (Whoop whoop pull up).

Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

The personal attacks were uncalled for. Seems like he was warned about this by Beeblebrox already. The questions whoop whoop have been asking may have been frivolous though. I am willing to assume good faith but this may have happened numerous times already, not sure. Still, calling someone retarded isn't the way to handle this. ScienceApe (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He was warned. Otherwise I would be warning him right now instead of putting it here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a big part of this dispute and do not wish to participate in the discussion. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor in this dispute, looking at the issues here for the first time. I will second Beeblebrox's advice - although some of the questions posted at the reference desk could have been answered by just reading the articles involved, there is no place in Wikipedia for personal attacks, and these definitely count as personal attacks. Probably the best thing for you both to do is to just stop interacting with each other for a while. There's no need for any more drastic measures just yet in my opinion, but if trouble persists it may become necessary. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Kerala_Iyers


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

The dispute is about how the community is to be viewed. Whether the actions/opinions of other communities about this community should be given prominence

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

"Yes".


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

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

I have been discussing these in the talk page from 2007. I had also expanded the article to include certain points raised by the users. But the users insist of the retention of irrelevant and derogatory sentences.


 * How do you think we can help?

The community pages in Wikipedia is basically about the community. It is not about how others view the community or their views. Caste conflicts have been part of Indian history. But it is not part of Wikipedia. Emphasizing on the (now illegal) obnoxious and inhuman practice of untouchability to prove the so called superiority of one caste over the other is not a Neutral Point of View.

I need independent opinions.

Sankarrukku (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

The issues are

1. The practice of Shudam (untouchabilty) by the Namboodiris.

This practice of the Namboothiri community has no relevance in an article about Kerala Iyers.

I do not find any mention of this in the article on Nairs or Ezhavas or any other community from Kerala. As I had posted earlier this article is about Kerala Iyers and not their relationship with other communities.

BTW the Namboodiris very rarely got an opportunity to practice this untouchability because the Kerala Iyers were neither the tenants or farm laborers with whom the land owners came into contact.

The reference is also from the site of the Namboothiri community.

I had expanded the article to show the caste hierarchy in Kerala as under.

<>

2. The community not becoming priests in Kerala temples.

I had expanded the article to show why Tamil Brahmins did not become temple priests in Kerala as under.

<<The Tamil Brahmins did not take up the profession of priesthood in Kerala temples as

1. They were Vaidika Brahmins. Vaidika Brahmins could not take up priesthood either in Tamil Nadu or in Kerala because the temple worship in Tamil Nadu is according to Agamas and the worship in Kerala is according to Kerala Tantras.

2. The sub castes which were in Kerala did not include Gurukkal brahmins who are the traditional priests in temples of Tamil Nadu. However they officiated as priests in temples erected by themselves in their agraharams.>>

The other users want to show as if it is a punishment.

I had mentioned in the discussions page

Again a mention is made about Tamil Brahmins being not allowed to be priests of the local temples. The Tamil Brahmin sects who form the majority of the Kerala Iyers are not allowed to be priests even in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The Gurukkal caste are the only people allowed to be priests in the prominent temples. Temple priesthood was not considered a good profession by the Tamil Brahmins. They never went for that. This is in contrast to the Namboothiris who considered it a noble profession.

3. Kerala_Iyers being cooks.

It is sought of be projected that the community was a army of cooks.

I had expanded the article as under

<>

They did not become cooks in Namboodiri or Nair households because of caste considerations. They were preferred as cooks in temples because their being Brahmins all other communities took the food cooked by them.

Subtle changes in sentences to bring down a very small linguistic community who are different because they speak Tamil and have their own Tamil culture.

Sankarrukku (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit the article.I am also a not a moderator.But if I have the right to comment about this.Then please consider my opinion.

I don't find anything derogatory .I just represents the facts from history.Moreover I wonder how someone can be of the conviction that cooking is a mean job! when there are people from many castes across India who have been forced to do the work of scavenger for more than a millennium.Iyers really cook good and many people love to eat in mess run by Iyers(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Good that you decided to utilize dispute resolution process rather than doing reverts. You editing style is overtoning the article. If Namboothiris were practising untouchability on Iyers, it should be mentioned in the article. You cannot remove that cited sentence. The caste system section you created is not having any citations. Please do not remove the tags (peacock and refimprove), as lot of sentences in the article is not cited. --Chektomate (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing facts. I am only asking whether it is Neutral Point of View to write about how one community viewed another.

This is not done on community pages in Wikipedia. Please check other pages. Plese see this page

Vishwakarma_(caste)

They call themselves Vishwa Brahmin. They are classified as other backward castes by the Government. Do the other castes view them as Brahmins? No one questions the name of the caste. Again I do not find any mention a about their position in the hierarchy of castes. In fact this statement about the position in the hierarchy of castes is not mentioned in most of the community pages.

I can quote a number of community pages where exaggerated claims have been made about a particular caste.

This is basic etiquette and also because it is not relevant.

Again after opening this discussion I find that the following tags have been placed in the article.

Unfortunately even the opening of the article which talks about migration can not be proved. There is no historical evidence about the migration of Tamil Brahmins to Travancore. The history books do not talk about any such migration.

Being a very small, non-political, non-Controversial community there is hardly any historical reference to this community. Web resources reflect only a point of view and are not facts.

That is why the article is still Stub Class.

Of course I can live with the tags which could be applied to most of the community pages.Sankarrukku (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear user Sankarrukku, you are not getting the point.
 * If you want to improve an article, you should not compare with a poor article. There is no sense in doing that.
 * In wikipedia, if there are no valid citations, those claims/sentences will be removed. "being a small community with hardly any historical reference" is not an excuse.
 * Please understand that you should not try to own the article. Your last statement "Of course I can live with the tags which could be applied to most of the community pages" also proves that you believes that the article belongs to you. Please read WP:OWN
 * And finally, please stop the reverts in the article. --Vythiri (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the points raised by me.

'''It is not the Wikipedia policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. Allowing this would open a flood agate of disputes.'''

A community web site represents its own version and view of the world. A citation from such a web site only reflects the view of the community.

The question is does Neutral Point of view means Namboothiri Point of View?

being temple priests is not the chosen profession of Iyers. you have chosen to portray the denail of priesthood as a great drawback and the reason for iyers becoming cooks. this is the Namboothiri point of view because they consider the profession of Priests to be nobe. I had explained this in my expansion of the article.

You started the edit wars. Even the reference here has not ended the attempts of people form trying to impose their point of view.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#My_edits_keep_getting_reverted._What_should_I_do.3F

Sankarrukku (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A new user name has been created today for carrying on reversion in the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kuttappayi

Sankarrukku (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sankarukku, you are again not getting the point. Please be neutral and allow all kind of information (if it is cited and related to the article) to stay. Do not blindly revert. Please go through the discussion again and come up with valid points. --Chektomate (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a neutral mediator in regard to this matter. If this edit defines the controversy here, then the resolution is simple. None of the material which was added or deleted in that edit should be included in the article. That is not because it is true or false but because it has been challenged and is not sourced. Wikipedia policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." For the material to be included in Wikipedia it must all, once challenged, be supported by reliable sources (and the term "reliable sources" has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, click that link to get a start on understanding it). The issue of POV is irrelevant if the material cannot be properly sourced. Since the material is obviously controversial please be sure to use inline citations to support it, rather than just listing references at the end of the article, so that the source for each individual item of information can be checked by authors who question it. Please remember that when citing sources English sources are preferred, especially for assertions which may be challenged. Until all that is done, there is nothing to discuss because we cannot evaluate whether or not the information is verifiable and including it based upon individual editors' personal knowledge or beliefs is prohibited original research. Finally, most of the editors in this dispute appear to be newcomers or relative newcomers and I would suggest that all the editors take the time to read my Advice to New Users essay being sure to click through and read all the links. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The uncited claims can be removed. Only cited claims should be retained. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Chektomate,
 * I'm here for some other dispute resolution, but since I have good relation with both the communities, I request you to avoid that derogatory remark on Iyers from their article. It's a fact, but please don't force them to bear that tag anymore. You could include it in an article on caste system or Namboodiri. --Ashleypt (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I had stated

'''It is not the Wikipedia policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. '''

I did not know how wrong I was. Any one can do it if they have muscle (number of users) power.

For all this trouble I have been rewarded with a block. They trapped me by the creation of a new user which I have pointed out.

A remark was made about my being a new editor. Yes I am though I have been editing since 2007. I have not yet learnt to play the game.

So there ends my association with Wikipedia. Best of luck to my two friends in their valiant efforts to destroy articles. You will progress in Wikipedia.

Sankarrukku (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Driving While Black


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

There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.


 * How do you think we can help?

Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy.

Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. My gut tells me Freechild won't revert his/her un-redirection so easily just based on your and my opinions, or at all, so I am wondering what the next step should be? Is there a target number of contributors weighing in, or a specific amount of time this discussion should be left open, before doing the redirect (assuming the consensus points towards doing so? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I wasn't aware of the background discussion when reverting. I should've taken it into account when I came across the article via recent changes. -Cntras (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cntras, your revert occured back in March during the initial discussion, and you appear to have been doing it thinking an unknowing IP editor was trying destructively edit an article. I'll give this a little more time to see if Freechild wants to respond, but if not I think restoring to the previous consensus is not out of line. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general).

The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your well-considered input. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. My only concern is that if we move all the rest to racial profiling and leave the specific parts about the term in the article, then the Driving While Black article will be reduced to a short definition, which would make the article violate WP:NOT. I believe the term is notable enough to be discussed in the racial profiling article, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article, so could certainly add more to the racial profiling article, including a short discussion of the term "driving while black" and similar terms used to describe racial profiling. With a redirect for the term itself to that section, I would think that should be satisfactory, unless there is some sort of agenda for making sure the specific term "Driving While Black" has it's own article which I am unaware of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your proposal, and for reaching out to me. That was a great thing to do. With regard to the earlier so-called consensus, which it was not since the anon IP acted almost unilaterally, I do not like engaging in conversations with anon editors who cite WP rules and guidelines as easy as the one involved in this case did. They refuse accountability, and as this one's edit history shows, they clearly only use this IP for pushing their POV. I don't say that lightly, as I've been accused of this many, many times. However, I do believe the anonymity represents a distrust and disdain for process. That said... The term "driving while black" clearly legitimate enough to warrant a WP article separate from racial profiling. While I know that it's not a popular meter anymore, there are 2,200 google scholar hits on the term. It is real vernacular that has crossed from popular usage to academic usage, and has clear cultural notability. Mr. Stradivarius, while your title suggestion is interesting, the simple fact of the matter is that the topic of driving while black is a demonstrable cultural phenomenon that has credible, third party sources demonstrating its validity in a variety of ways. I believe we must maintain the integrity of WP by deliberately including terms that we disagree with, if only because they're notable. • Freechild talk 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hold on a second - I didn't say that we couldn't have an article on the term "Driving While Black". About Mmyers1976's concerns about WP:NOT, that would only be a problem if the resulting article was very short and didn't contain more than a dictionary definition. If the term is notable and there are enough sources on it to create a decent article, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we can't have an article on it. In fact I have had a little look for sources on the etymology and usage of the term, and I found some very good ones (for example this source). Rather than getting rid of the article altogether, what I suggested was that an article on the wider topic of racial profiling in traffic policing called "Driving While Black" may fall foul of WP:TITLE. Do you think it would be possible to have a more neutral title than "Driving While Black" for a more general article on racial profiling in traffic searches? Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have played around with a draft of what the article might look like if we took out discussion that was just about racial profiling and the sources themselves didn't mention "driving while black" or a variation of. You can look at it here:User:Mmyers1976/Driving_While_Black_Draft Everyone feel free to play around with it. Incidentally, three of the sources are dead links, and the assertion about the term "shopping while black" is unsourced, those should be fixed if the article remains. I personally don't "disagree" with the term, or find it biased or offensive, but looking at the article, even if we keep the article, "Driving While Black" appears to be the wrong title for the article. The article puts most of its weight on variations on the term, so really the article is not about "Driving While Black", the article is about "(insert activity here)-ing while (insert ethnicity here)". Obviously THAT title won't work either ;). I noticed as well when looking at the sources for the variations, none of those sources acknowledges that these are derived from or are variations on the term "driving while black". So, if we are going to keep the article, the way I see it is we have two options: 1. Rename the article so the title is more descriptive and doesn't put too much weight on any one variation. 2. Flesh out the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that it doesn't violate WP:NOT. For the first option, I can't think of a suggestion. For the second item, I think it would be important to use sources that discuss the usage of the term, not just provide examples of the term being used, or else the article is in danger of becoming a link farm. I think we would also need sources that clearly establish that "driving while black" is the dominant variation, or else the original term from which the other terms sprang. Freechild, you seem to be the one who really feels strongly about keeping the article, how do you envision that we could expand the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that the article isn't a dictionary definition or really a discussion of all the "*-ing while *" terms? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I found another source, a widely known one (ACLU) on Driving While Black that may or may not be helpful in fleshing out the article: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways. I would like to note the title, however: "Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation's Highways." This pretty much confirms that "Driving While Black" IS racial profiling, which we already have an article on. Therefore, in order for the "Driving While Black" article to stand on its own, it needs to discuss the term, not the concept. First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assertion in the final line of this argument, and would move that we come to consensus on that approach: "First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling." • Freechild talk 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I take it that this means both of you agree to keep things related to the term itself in the current article, and to move the rest to racial profiling? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be half the solution, the other half would be fleshing out the section discussing usage, significance, and etymology of the term, so the article won't violate WP:NOT (which it would right now), as well as so that it will stop being an article on the variations with a misleading title (which it is right now). Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Femme Fatale Tour


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

User:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th, arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." I opened a discussion here, but other editors encouraged me to open a discussion on the article's talk page. I did, and of course, it didn't work. I even invited another editor and he still reverted all the changes. He's also removing more information from the article that we did not discuss.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

I've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits. It's basically the same situation as the previous discussion.


 * How do you think we can help?

Itsbydesign should understand that as a Wikipedia editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion.

Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi there, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. The question here, I think, is how much weight reliable sources on the tour give to Minaj's performance. If reliable sources gave Minaj's set decent coverage in relation to Britney's set, then I don't see any problem in including her set list. From the two sources that you linked to above, it seems that Minaj's set was fairly well-covered in the press. I found this quote from Itsbydesign on the talk page that looks like it sums up their position on the matter: "This is not a co-headlining tour. This is a concert tour by Britney Spears that features Nicki Minaj. She is not the main focus of the tour. I am sure people are not paying $300 to see Minaj onstage for 30 minutes. All concert reviews will critique the entire show, including the opening act. That is not a determination in notability." I would like to hear from Itsbydesign how they can reconcile this view with WP:WEIGHT, which says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". In Wikipedia it really is what the sources say that matters. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sixsmith
I wish to report harrassment by the above username. He has an arrogant attitude and has left insulting messages on my talk page as part of an edit war on Big Brother 2011. I have requested he stops, he has a high opinion of himself and persecutes other editors with insults and rude comments. He has to stop.86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:POT applies here. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture


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

Obstructionism, stalling, ignoring the outcome of a previous dispute resolution.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

At some point, a highly biased section entitled “Allegation of torture” was created. It cited only an Amnesty International opinion paper as “proof” that the allegations were true.

I objected to the section outright as not neutral. I also allowed that a different source (I suggested a few, most especially an FBI document I’d seen years ago but can not name now) could give the same basis, but be neutral.

Berean Hunter and Binksternet have dug in their heels instead; I eventually took it to a mediation, where [TransporterMan] eventually found that the material should be included, but with a revised title and with BOTH SIDES of the picture included.

After this I started a new discussion on the section in question. Between 13 and 16 September hh and I hashed out a revised section with the exception of inline citations; hh supplied citations, but I don’t understand how to get them in-line.

After waiting a full day, with no revisions or comments on the new text (only on the lack of inline citations), I went ahead and put the revisions on the main page awaiting someone (presumably hh) to include the inline citations.

Berean Hunter immediately removed the revisions as “original research” (despite the fact he’d had at almost a week to object to the text at this point).

At this point, they’ve been told to “fix it” but have flagrantly refused to do so.

EDIT: hh has attempted to work with me on this issue. I am unsure he has any interest in this matter one way or the other at this point.


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

Yes.


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

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

Two SEPARATE discussions on the subject, including one request to simply use a different (un-biased) source and a sub-section simply to hash out the final text. Yes, I have tried very hard to work this out beforehand.


 * How do you think we can help?

Tell them to:

Stop stalling;

Stop reverting the page.

If they want “inline” citations, they can include them; I’ve already stated I don’t understand how to do this, it’s a trivial matter, and the biased material is still up.

Additionally:

Batons and Caltrops are considered lethal weapons under the laws of all civilized localities. Anarchies do not have laws, but even in those areas people understand that these are an attempt to take life.

The entire tone of the page has a deeply anti-police ‘tone’ to it. I am NOT referring to the talk page; I treat the talk page as a rough draft to be discussed. I am talking about the overall tone of the page itself. If it can be arranged, have someone go over the page and review it for the use of weasel words and dodgy logic.

Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

I think we can dismiss the additional caltrops issue as already discussed and closed with consensus. Many secondary reliable sources were brought forward to show that caltrops are considered non-lethal weapons, but Reddson stuck to his one primary document, an arguably irrelevant law from California which determined that an individual's use of caltrops would be prosecuted by California the same as if a felony deadly weapon had been used, but did not define caltrops themselves as a deadly weapon. Very many other highly regarded expert sources call caltrops a non-lethal weapon. Reddson was the sole voice arguing to remove caltrops from the article about non-lethal weapons. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have presented a completed and ready to present revised text that meets the requirements of the mediation results. Neither Berean Hunter nor Binkersnet have made any comments to these (as of my last check, which was after this process started). The only complaint they have is that the citations are not “in line.” This is a dodge, intended to “run the clock” (if it stays inactive long enough, it goes stale and the matter is closed by default)- The deadline effect, if you prefer. As to a signature- It’s never been a “requirement” but I altered my sig once again to use it without generating anger outright. Another Red Herring. As to the return to MedCab: I asked what to do next. I was instructed to come here. I came here. Red Herring.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reddson has not described this dispute very well. He chose to forgo the discussion which may lead to consensus and in the face of the other three editors involved in the thread, he went against Wiki policies with this edit which is original research & synthesis with an attempt to use cite needed tags as placeholders which is unacceptable. He filed a bad faith 3RR report on me which was summarily rejected and Reddson was counseled both there and at this thread at ANI. He continues with a case of I didn't hear that and is now forum shopping. Despite joining Wikipedia in 2008, he claims to not know how to find nor form citations...and apparently doesn't know how to sign his name correctly as it is missing the datestamp. It isn't for a lack of others supplying the links to pages where Reddson may learn how to do those things but rather he doesn't want to. He seems to want to rush under the incorrect perception that he is right and that he prevailed in the MedCab case and accuses others of stalling and having an agenda. He will have to learn that there is no deadline at Wikipedia and that if he plans to contribute at Wikipedia in a meaningful way, he will need to learn our policies & guidelines as well as how to do the functions required of an editor. Otherwise, he isn't going to get very far. <font face="High Tower Text" size="1px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Berean Hunter and Binkersnet choose not to participate in the post-mediation discussion; hh did not, and worked in good faith. Further, Beraean Hunter filed the bad-faith warning, and was told to stop. I requested he be reviewed. (That is for a later date to deal with.) This is a blatant red herring in the hopes that if he stalls long enough I’ll give up and go away.
 * As to Binkerstnat’s statements, no, there is NOT consensus. Indeed, I noticed that the bad-faith complaints by Berean Hunter only began AFTER I put something related to his “sources” on my own talk page. As to my source, it was “California Penal Code §245. (a) (1), Assault Deadly Weapon:” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=240-248 .I have a very hard time understanding how the law can be called “irrelevant” especially as it considered a felony (sadly, just like using a gun). (Please note: I didn’t write the law, I don’t agree with it, but I have no control over it.) SeE also CPC §12355 “Boobytraps.” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12355. Additionally, other than here, I have never seen batons referred to as anything other than a deadly weap.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the penal code would be the kind of primary source we'd want to avoid, see this from WP:PSTS. From common sense, certainly a baton can be used as a deadly weapon, but I would argue unlike a normal handgun, the primary purpose of a baton is not to kill someone, but rather to force someone to submit to a desired action. But one would need to bring secondary sources to bear on the issue. What secondary sources can you point to that classify a baton or caltrop as a deadly weapon? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many, which will have to wait until the matter at hand is dealt with.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on this. I have had a look at the talk page, and I think all the editors involved are actually making good points. Regarding the material that Andering J. REDDSON is proposing to add, it is clearly not cited well enough yet to go in the article. We must respect the content policies of verifiability and no original research, and this requires sourcing each claim that could be questioned with a reliable source that specifically backs up that claim. It is not enough to insert it in the article with a promise to find sources later.

However, Reddson does have a point, in that the section as it currently exists is problematic. The section heading "Allegations of torture" sounds sensationalist, and should be replaced with something that can reflect both sides of the issue; the source http://www.nopepperspray.org/ is not reliable and should not be used to back up any claims here; and the Amnesty source needs to be attributed in all instances, as it clearly has an agenda in reporting these issues. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is remove questionable material from the current version while Reddson's new version is being written. When the new version gains consensus on the page, then it can be inserted in the article. I will have a go at trimming the problematic parts from the current section to try and make an acceptable interim version. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is now rewritten. It is now looking very bare, and if the section wasn't being redrafted I would suggest that it be removed, and replaced with a mention in the "pepper spray" section instead; two incidents involving misuse of pepper spray does not equal misuse of all kinds of non-lethal weapons. All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 16:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani


Dispute overview
 * When I found that the article: Syrian Malabar Nasrani is with a partisan view on the early socio-ethnic and cultural attributes of Syrian Christians in Kerala, I tried to introduce some space for neglected side. But the result is an edit-war. My view is that St.Thomas (or his disciple) could have probably evangelized both local people and Jewish people in the 1st century. I have introduced many reliable sources suggesting my view. Since it is not a scientific theory, the traditional beliefs of the concerned community could be given sufficient space until it is proved wrong. "All are Jews" view is nether acceptable nor proved. I request your good self to clean up the article. I think my view is more inclusive compared to the single race view of Robin Klein. All the Syrian Catholic Churches' official view contradict the idea of "All-Jews".

Users involved Ashleypt notified Robin klein of this dispute.


 * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes. Informed Robin Klein. He is the only editor in dispute as far as I know.

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

Raised the matter in the Discussion Board of the Article. Since there are more than 4 million Syrian Christian in Kerala and many may refer the article, it would have been appropriate to correct the document as soon as possible. So I modified the page after raising my contentions in the Discussion Page after mentioning sufficient sources on the subject. But it triggered an 'edit-war"
 * How do you think we can help?

Kindly intervene to allow an inclusive article on the history of 40 million Syrian Christians in Kerala in Wikipedia.

--Ashleypt (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani discussion
I have to say that User:Ashleypt is not accurate when he says that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. There are other users as well who have reverted his POV edits. Please see the history of the article [] Other editors involved include User:SpacemanSpiff and a user without an account 117.201.250.33

Ashleypt has been deleting references and adding his own ideas and now incorrectly stating that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. He has further stated there is no proof yet about Nasrani descent. However I should state that the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized. For latest research on Nasrani heritage and Jewish descent. Please refer to research by Dr Mini Kariappa, of Department of Anatomy, Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur. Dr Mini Kariappa has done DNA analysis of syrian malabar nasranis and found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis. She presented her reserach on september 5th 2011. There was a link of her interview in the malayalam language that was published in a malayalam language newspaper in Kerala. Here is the link http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentId=10033956&programId=1073753770&channelId=-1073751706&BV_ID=@@@&tabId=11

Ashleypt is trying to promote a casteist idea of nationalist supremacy that aspires to assume a 'supposed' superiority of the supposed elite 'Brahmin' hierarchical casteist society by trying to state that the Nasranis are brahmins. I should remind you that the Malabar Nasranis were persecuted in the Portuguese analogue of the Spanish inquisition known as the Portuguese Inquisition with the Portuguese burning hundreds of Syriac documents. Kindly see to it that Wikipedia does not become a platform where people propagate age old casteist ideas. Ashleypt does not give any support for stating the legends of brahmin descent saying that these are long held ideas. Denying and even brushing aside the latest DNA results. The latest DNA result shows the admixture of Jewish diaspora and local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Which has always been stated in the article. In fact he distorts the admixture with local people as admixture with Brahmin, which is incorrect and at the root of the problem. Again to repeat. The article has always maintained that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are an admixture of local South Indian Malabar people and the Jewish people just as latest DNA results support. However Ashleypt is in the attempt to remove the mention of local admixture and make it seem as brahmin. Ashleypt is not concerned or interested about the admixture of Jewish diaspora with the local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Instead his real interest is the supposed 'Brahmin superiority'. Robin klein (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ashleypt and Robin, and thank you both for commenting at this noticeboard! It is always a good idea to get outside input when edits get reverted and discussion starts getting heated. Now that you've brought this dispute here, it's time to sit down, relax, and think things over with a clear head. Now, I have some thoughts on the issues here, and to start with I have a comment for Ashleypt. Wikipedia is interested in facts. Now, of course, there are lots of opinions in Wikipedia articles too, but because we have to write articles from a neutral point of view, we always attribute points of view to whoever made them. You have been trying to add the text "the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people who could have been baptized by St. Thomas or one of his disciples" (my italics). This isn't really a fact, because it doesn't tell you anything. My mother could be Marilyn Monroe, but that doesn't really tell you anything. To turn your statement into a fact, we need to attribute it to someone. For example: "[INSERT GROUP HERE] believe that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people who were baptized by St. Thomas or one of his disciples". Now this makes it into a fact, and you can now include it into the article. However, there's more. In Wikipedia, we have to avoid giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. The text you are wishing to add is in the introduction to the article, right at the top. This is a very prominent place to put this viewpoint, and it would be giving it more weight than other viewpoints. Now the undue weight policy says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." So, if your claim was the most prominent viewpoint, then we could include it in the introduction. That doesn't look like the case here, though. I think a better solution would be to put this claim in the body of the article, and make sure that you give it an appropriate amount of coverage according to its prominence in reliable sources. (What exactly this prominence is is something you will have to work out with the other editors of the article.) Now, Robin, I saw that you called some of Ashleypt's edits "vandalism". I can appreciate that you might be frustrated at having your edits reverted by them, but you have to understand that on Wikipedia we have quite a strict definition of vandalism - I recommend having a careful read of WP:VANDAL and only using the word "vandalism" in its strictest sense. Calling well-meaning edits "vandalism" is often considered "biting the newbies" and is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, regarding your statement above saying "the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized", this would also need to be attributed in the article, I think. For there to be a true scientific consensus Dr. Kariappa's research would have to be verified by other research teams and published in a scientific review or in a respected textbook. Until then it is probably best to say something like "a study by Dr. Mini Kariappa found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis", and not make the claim any stronger than this, as it could yet be refuted by subsequent research. This has been a long reply, and I hope it is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius  ♫</b> 17:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Thank you for your guidance on editing an article in Wikipedia. I appreciate your views and would try to modify the article as you directed. --Ashleypt (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Mr. Stradivarius thank you very much for the feedback. I also want to say that the dispute was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard by Ashleypt and I did not make any changes to the article until I heard from you. However Ashleypt reverted edit before the matter was brought on the dispute resolution board. thanks Robin klein (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC) ---Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Dear Mr.Stradivarius, I'm quite happy to inform you that I and Mr. Robin have reached a consensus on the above mentioned sentence in the article and both agreed on it as "The Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people and Jewish diaspora in Kerala who were evangelized by St. Thomas in the Malabar Coast in the earliest days of Christianity." This modification is the only one I have done after posting the dispute here {(cur | prev)  09:38, 26 September 2011 Ashleypt (talk | contribs) (55,116 bytes) (undo).} Mr. Robin Klein agreed to it in a discussion on the page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Cleanup.

Now Mr. Robin Klein's major contention is the inclusion of the following sentence:".It could be drawn from the early history of Kerala that in the 1st century after Christ a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Musiris in which the elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains as well as some migrated Jews and Arabs lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." He presumes that this sentence implicate the conversion of brahmins by St.Thomas. Even though the tradition suggests the conversion of some brahmins by the apostle, I refrained from directly mentioning anything about it to avoid any more controversy. It's not bold,but I think, it's up to the readers who could draw an opinion depending on their point of view. With Regards, --Ashleypt (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now Mr. Robin Klein has edited the document and replaced the part "elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains" with "local people". But I think a brief description about the ethnic groups in native people who were evangelized by St.Thomas is not against wikipedia policy or standards. Dravidian or Aryan is just an ethnic group as Semitic.Mr. Robin prefers to specify Semitic and opposes specifying Aryan/Dravidian. Similarly Jew is a sub group in Semitic Race and Brahmin is a sub group in Aryan race. I think, it would give undue preference to Jews over other ethinic sub-groups and hence partisan. Anyway, I'm waiting for a neutral opinion on it.

--Ashleypt (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. The information provided by Ashleypt is not complete. He is not presenting the entire statement which was modified. The text was "It could be drawn from the early history of Kerala that in the 1st century after Christ a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Musiris in which the elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains as well as some migrated Jews and Arabs lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." This was rewritten and made neutral in description as "Around the early days of Christianity a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Muziris in which local people as well as migrated West Asian Semitic people lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." I have changed Aryan-Brahmin, Dravidian, Jains etc as local people and Jews and Arabs as West Asian semitic. I have not mentioned any particular community. I have used broad terms that encompasses these peoples. I have not been partisan. The accusation is fallacious. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

--Ashleypt (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The word, Jew or Jewish has been used 43 times in the document and many times in controversial way. I have't tried to modify any of those disputable contents, but anybody who flick through the article could easily understand the undue preference given to Jewish section of the early Christians in Kerala.


 * Dear Ashleypt, the point is that academic work in peer reviewed research journals is not about stating traditional legends. Wikipedia is not a compendium of folk hearsay. If that was so, one would write in wikipedia that the sun revolves round the earth. That is why even the church has apologized for persecuting Galileo. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Robin klein, If so is the case, we can't claim even the Apostolic Ministry of St.Thomas in India. Do you think the story of Jewish conversion has enough supportive evidences? --Ashleypt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Ashleypt, evidence for Jewish presence in Kerala is there in the form of the cochin jewish people in Kerala. Abrahamic religions has been there in malabar coast for several millennium including jewish and Islamic brought by Semitic Traders. So the earliest christians in the Malabar Coast were mostly christian Jewish traders. Even the copper plates given to Malabar Nasranis have West Asian Signatures including Hebrew. There is no clear evidence about the ministry of St. Thomas amongst the Namboodiris. That is why the introductory statement was written as "The Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the natives and those of the Jewish diaspora in Kerala who became Christians in the Malabar Coast in the earliest days of Christianity." No mention of St. Thomas Ministry was made as there is no evidence for it. I am glad you agree that there is no evidence of St. Thomas ministry amongst the Namboodiri. That is why St. Thomas ministry was not given prominence in the article until you wrote it. Robin klein (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Robin klein, Jewish presence is not at all a solid proof for the story of Jewish Ancestry of Syrian Christians unless it is supported by some solid evidences. I wonder how you could consider the case of Persian Signatories in Tharisappalli Plates, given to a Mar Sapor and Co who migrated to Quilon in 825 AD, as a proof for the Semitic lineage of the early Syrian Christians in Kerala who embraced Christianity in 1st century AD. I repeat, there is no solid proof for Jewish version of the story, evidently including the claims of Knanaya people and their so-called Knayi Thomman legend. You stated above "Wikipedia is not a compendium of folk hearsay", but do you know with how much pride and confidence our Southist brothers have depicted their tradition in the Wiki Article: Knanaya. Even the original Jews state in Wikipedia as: "In Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the second millennium BCE." Yes Mr. Robin Klein, all the communities proud in their legends and traditions. When depicting a legend, we just have to be frank enough to state that it's a legend and could be true due to so and so supportive reasons.
 * Another baseless story is the theory of Samaritan people which suggests early Christians were called Northists as they had migrated from Samaria. 1st 'f all, there are no archaeological proofs for the existence of Kingdom of Judah. Even if we base the story on Tradition, Jews of both the Kingdoms were exiled one after the other (in 8th century and 6th century BC respectively), and the diaspora was not limited to Samaria only. So, both Samaria people as well as Judah people could have migrated to Kerala before 500 BC, if LEGENDS are believed.

--Ashleypt (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Ashleypt, There are no evidence of St Thomas Ministry amongst the Brahmin Namboodiris. There is no evidence of the presence of Christianity in Kerala in 1st century CE. However Mosaic-Abrahamic religions has been there in malabar coast for several millennium including jewish and Islamic brought by Semitic Traders. So the earliest christians in the Malabar Coast were mostly christian Jewish traders. Even the copper plates given to Malabar Nasranis have West Asian Signatures including Hebrew, regardless of whether they came in the first century or later in the 8th century. And yes Iran or Persia had a large Jewish population. According to jewishdatabank.org even today the largest number of Jews in Asia outside Israel is in Iran. That explains the Pahlavi, Kufic and Hebrew signatures. However there is no evidence of St Thomas Ministry amongst the Namboodiris. St. Thomas ministry was not given prominence in the article until you wrote it. Robin klein (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Robin and Ashleypt. Reading your subsequent posts, it seems that this discussion could become quite long as we examine all the details. Would you be willing to take this to another venue? I think this case would be suited to informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal. What do you both think of this suggestion? Regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Southists generally claim that they are the descendants of Thomas Cana and of others who came with him from abroad and have kept their blood pure without intermingling with the natives. In 1939, Chazhikaden has taken it to another level claiming that the Southist are Jewish Christians. The Northist, ie Christians of Saint Thomas, according to them whether they lived in Malabar before or after the arrival of Thomas Cana, had mixed with the natives.The Northist version for the cause of the division is given in an old manuscript called Sloane MS, 2743 at the British Museum. The substance of the Northist version is that the Southists are descendants of those in Malabar (Cranganore) consequent to the arrival of Thomas Cana, who entered into marriage relations with the children of a native woman. This native woman was of the Mainatoo caste(Washer Women) who was a servant of Thomas of Cana. Other stories trace the origins of the Southists to a dobi, a washerwoman, whom Thomas of Cana took as concubine.These arguments revolve on the legitimate and illegitimate children of Thomas of Cana. Traditions associated with Thomas of Cana was a shared tradition among the Christians in Kerala. These arguments might have been invented to express the odium and hatred each community bore against the other."
 * Dear Stradivarius, I look forward to resolve the dispute in an amicable way, but without compromising on the neutrality of the article. It's quite injustice to deny the genuine demand of concerned community to uphold it's valued traditions in the related Wikipedia page, by labeling it as "Nationalist Propaganda" or by inviting enforcement agencies to cite more and more credentials. I think, any tradition or episode in the prehistory can't be proved beyond doubt, just as in the case of Indus Valley Civilization. Hence most of such contents in Wikipedia should be prefixed with "It is believed that" or "As per the tradition", since history is neither science nor mathematics. Your 1st guidance on this dispute gives more confidence to me to protect the traditions of the community under discussion in related Wikipedia article.
 * Since 2006, I'm aware of such a conspiracy to rubbish the traditional beliefs of the larger faction of Syrian Christians in Kerala who proud in their original Indian Culture. From the above conversation, I believe, you could have drawn some hints on it. The smaller faction in the community viz. Knanaya has their own article in Wikipedia and they preserve their traditions in the page, but I don't understand why their agents are trying to thrust the Jewish traditions alone on the larger faction of the community. Yes, the rift between the ideologies of both the factions are centuries old and in the last decade it entered in "On-Line World".
 * ie, this dispute is centuries old and the new generation already quarreling "on-line" each other to establish supremacy using propaganda and vandalism. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be ground for mutual distortion of articles by both. Let both keep their traditional beliefs upheld with pride. I'm not against moving this discussion to the proposed venue. Hope somebody will intervene or mediate to keep the neutrality.--Ashleypt (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Stradivarius, Thanks again for the feedback. Since Ashleypt, has himself agreed that there is no evidence at all of St. Thomas Ministry amongst the Namboodiri Brahmins (please see the discussions above), I do not see any point in discussing further as the important point is already agreed upon. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Robin, I was distressed with your adamant statement despite clear knowledge of factual error. The Copper Plates given to Mar Sapor and Co just suggest that a few Semitic Christians joined the native Christian community in 9th century. The Thazhekad Edict which is older than Copper Plates you mentioned and more importantly related to the Christian community at Kodungalloor where the earliest Christian settlement was available doesn't have any hint of Semitic migration to Christian community before 9th century. Moreover there are Moreover, there were Jewish settlements in Ceylone, Kalyan, Goa, China etc, but we can't see similar Christian communities anywhere there. Now if you claim that there were no Christians in Kerala before 9th century, there are multiple evidences against that postulate. I could guide you if you specify that. From the cultural affinity of St.Thomas Christians to Hindus contrary to other Abrahamic religions in Kerala - Cochin Jews and Muslims, the ancestry could be easily traced. When Portuguese 1st came here, they surprised to see St. Thomas Christian community indistinguishable in the social blend with Hindu community. Even their Church architecture, processions, life style, offerings etc were all identical to those of Hindus. As you know, all these Hindu Rituals(nearly 1500) were banned by the Synod of Udayamperoor. If the so-called purification by Latin Missionaries were not done, you just imagine - what could have been our present status. From the point of view of Hindus too, they gave special preference to St.Thomas Christians against other communities. Nazranis were invited by Hindus for touching and purifying the oil and utensils to be used in the temples and palaces. Concomitantly certain Christian families were specially invited offering them land and were made to settle down near the temples and palaces for the purpose of touching and purifying the oil (enna thottu kodukkan) and for purifying the vessels being ‘polluted’ by the touch or use of lower caste people. In many localities christian men attired themselves with sacred thread, tuft(kudumi) and observed pollution by birth and death just like brahmins. ie St.Thomas withheld Hindu culture and Hindus accepted them as pure caste while other Semitic migrants failed to assimilate smoothly to alien culture just as Cochin Jews. --Ashleypt (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ian Tomlinson


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

This is a very simple content dispute. A few months ago, I raised an RFC in which I articulated my case for updating the lead of the article. Everyone involved in that discussion, apart from SlimVirgin, agreed with the fundamental point that the lead needed updating. Eventually, SlimVirgin appeared to remove herself from proceedings, a consensus was subsequently reached and a new lead was inserted. That lead then remained in the article without complaint for the next two months.

Last month, a completely separate editor raised an issue with the new lead. Despite the fact that (in my view) the problem raised could have been solved very simply, SlimVirgin instantly reverted back to the old lead without explaining why that actually addressed the issues raised by the editor - and without waiting for anyone else to comment. She has since been asked to explain her reasoning by myself and another editor, but she has not done so. (All this is in the sections 'Unlawfully killed' in archive 2 of the talk page and 'Unexplained reversions' on the talk page itself.) She has also reverted - again without any talk page justification - any attempt to return to the previously agreed lead. These reverts are as follows:







Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

As mentioned in the overview, I have posted twice on the talk page, asking SlimVirgin to explain her reasoning. Both attempts have been ignored.

(note, 26 July is incorrect. The date should be 26 June.  I subsequently corrected this.)




 * How do you think we can help?

I would simply like appropriate process to be followed. Given the lengthy previous discussion, I feel it appropriate that SlimVirgin should have to articulate her position and establish a consensus on the talk page before making such changes. Unilaterally overriding everyone else cannot be right.

Elvellian (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerkish note: SlimVirgin has not edited Wikipedia since 21 September. Probably will not be much discussion here until she resumes editing and responds here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Campaign for "santorum" neologism


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

I proposed that the first sentence of the introduction be:
 * The campaign for the "santorum" neologism, initiated in 2003 by journalist and gay rights activist Dan Savage in response to comments by United States Senator Rick Santorum regarding gay marriage, is an effort to associate "santorum" with the definition "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

I would like more input about this, as this is currently disputed. There are a few editors who have been involved with the issue for several months and this could use outside input.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

I have initiated a few discussions about this issue with little input except from editors who have been heavily involved for months. It is an article with relevance to current events so I am requesting additional input rather than waiting.


 * How do you think we can help?

Add outside input to the dispute

SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerkish question: The guidelines for this noticeboard say, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." It would appear to me that this request ought to be closed unless the RFC requested here, which has substantially overlapping issues, is withdrawn. Is there some reason that I am mistaken about that? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The rfc has been there for several days with zero outside input (everyone currently in the thread, except myself, has been heavily involved in discussions in the past.) I don't know if I listed the rfc incorrectly or just haven't advertised it enough. Either way I think it is important that this be addressed by a larger group of editors with in a timely manner, because it is related to current events. I went ahead and removed the rfc tag. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 22:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - IMO, boards like this are for long, drawn-out, and intractable situations. This current discussion has only been going on for a few days.  One user not getting his way does not a dispute make.  A fitting analogy would be those who suggest the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article be moved to "Climategate".  Been there, done that, didn't like the novelization. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you anticipate consensus being reached on this issue without outside involvement, Tarc? SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 23:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus on this issue was already reached quite awhile ago...and yes, consensus can change and all that, but so far your new proposal of an old idea isn't exactly kindling a blaze of interest, is it? We do have to be mindful of WP:BLP concerns here as well. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read through the archives. Consensus was never reached on this issue. As per WP:BLP, I haven't proposed any additional criticism/unsourced material/attacks (or any additional information at all, for that matter.) The definition for "santorum" is already written in the article. WP:BLP shouldn't be a new concern with my proposed edit, unless I'm missing something. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Removing an RfC which does not look promising for an editor's position, and then starting over in a "new venue" is unlikely to be a "dispute resolution" but more like "dispute exacerbation." Not a wise use of this board IMO. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The rfc had zero outside input, and only three (including myself) active editors involved in the discussion. Only one editor (Tarc) disagreed with my position, and one (Becritical) supported it. Both have been heavily involved in the discussions for several months. I don't think that is "not promising" for my position. This needs much more outside input, and I think it's fair to say consensus won't be achieved without it. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 23:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What efforts were made to widen the discussion once it became evident that there was insufficient participation to develop meaningful consensus? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First I added an unsorted rfc tag, which had no responses in 24 hours. Then I resorted it into the society/culture rfc, which still got no responses in a day. I know that might not seem like much time, but for what has been such a highly active page (MiszaBot archives after just 10 days on that talk page, for example) I thought the lack of participation was unusual. Is there another way to widen the discussion? SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be much better to have input from outside, and also not just editors who've taken a break. Be— —Critical 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - it appears from a look that SHMD1 was basically reverting back to a hotly disputed prior version that although he asserts there was no consensus for, there were multiple objections to - I would say that version is basically a BLP violation due to the way its weighted and written and its disruptive and detrimental to attempt to replace it and that Tarc was completely correct to revert SHMD1's edit he just didn't express himself clearly enough as to the reasons he did it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we here to debate content? I do think that there are BLP issues here, and also POV issues. Would it be appropriate to post a neutral note to those noticeboards to ask for more eyes on the RFC? Given the nature of prior discussions on the topic, I think more participation may be appropriate as a start, but I'm uncertain as to where it will lead, as the issue seems to be a bit of a lightning rod. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Off2riorob: I completely agree my edit was controversial; the majority of edits about such a topic are bound to be, I feel. The problem is that the current edit is also hotly disputed, and several objections have been noted on the talk page about the way it is written as well. It's important that the lead be written in the most clear and accurate way possible. For example, would you agree or disagree that the fact that the current introduction section describes the media response to the definition of "santorum" before actually stating what the definition is is a problem? I'm not suggesting that the definition belongs in the first sentence (because its positioning seems to bear the brunt of what is controversial about this proposed edit) but I strongly believe that because associating "santorum" with the definition is what the campaign is for, it belongs in the first couple sentences. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was rewritten deliberately to as much as possible remove the attacking aspects from the google return, so as an attempt to minimize as much as possible, from a neutral point of view, the contributory attacking contribution of our article to the campaign. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is basically Wikipedia censoring itself and writing badly so as to placate forces beyond itself. I think that's a slippery slope we should not go down. NPOV doesn't say anything about OPOV, Outside point of view.   Be— —Critical  14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been censored, its just being published in a different way to how you desire, for reasons that you oppose. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's censorship. It's just not the kind where facts are entirely left out, see Internet censorship, and specifically a form of Euphemism.   Be— —Critical  22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy to disagree with you - I am far from a free speecher and take an err on the side of caution in what I have seen is a project thats aims and ambitions are similar. This is nothing more than an attempt to use our article and its reflection in google results to further demean a living person - the resisting of that that has got nothing to do with censorship.Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with such POVs, and there's proof of that on the article talk page. Be— —Critical  01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are BLP issues here, and also POV issues, would it be appropriate to post a neutral note to those noticeboards to ask for more eyes on the RFC? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor looking at these issues for the first time. SGMD1, when I saw your proposal the first reaction that I had was that it wouldn't work. There has been a large amount of debate at the talk page, and similar proposals for the first sentence have been made before, but were disputed by other editors. I can see no indication that anything is different this time round. You claim that your proposed sentence does not violate WP:BLP, but actually, I think it does; specifically, WP:BLPGOSSIP. The "definition" is, of course, important to an understanding of the campaign for the "santorum" neologism, but putting it in the first sentence gives it undue weight, in my opinion, and risks readers assuming that its association with Rick Santorum is more tangible than it really is. Wikipedia should not merely repeat what a smear campaign says about a person, but should put it in its proper light in relation to the campaign itself. I think that probably the best thing to do here is just to drop the issue - pursuing it further will probably only result in frustration for all involved. However, if you insist on taking this to the next step, then starting a new RfC is the way to do it. I think it would be appropriate to advertise it on the talk pages of any related WikiProjects, but probably not at community noticeboards, as things outside noticeboards' remits are frequently refactored or ignored. Sorry for the slightly blunt post, but I hope this has been useful. If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the first suggestion won't work. There are a few new suggestions at the bottom of the talk page in the "RfC clarification" section. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have re-added the RfC. SGMD1 Talk/Contribs 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto


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

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing sourced material which is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. With his version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). There is also a consensus at the peer review to keep that content and he is still removing it, ignoring that this version represents consensus among editors.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

Talk:Jared Leto, Peer review/Jared Leto/archive1 and User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz


 * How do you think we can help?

To judge whether that material can remain in the article.

Earthh (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Speedy close, and trout-slap the initiating editor for misuse of this process. As should be evident from review of the article and its talk page, several experienced editors have raised objections to the tone and excessively favorable POV in Earthh's previously undiscussed revamp/expansion of the Jared Leto article. Since the objections were raised, no editors have supported Earthh's position. Rather than respecting the on-article consensus, Earthh insists that the vaguely/generally favorable comments by a single editor at a prior peer review entitles him to reinstate the dubious material, and does so on a (roughly) weekly basis. Note also that Earthh did not notify User:Nymf and User:John, the other editors who've actively been involved in trying to prune tghge article (which still needs to be cleaned up further), but did canvass the peer-reviewing editor, who hasn't been involved in the actual editing dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you are not improving this article. Give an explanation of your removal otherwise I will revert one more time.--Earthh (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WARNING making that kind of statement is almost always immediate grounds for blocking as you are threatining to disrupt Wikipedia for "The Truth" does it hurt to discuss it for a few days? Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DRN Co-ordinator's comment: Hullaballoo if anything the trout slap belongs to you. As a long time editor I would have expected you to engage the wheels of DR again rather than be dismissive of the other editor in the situation. Earthh, part of this board's purpose is to be used after discussion has come to a stand still on the article page. Based on the fact that there was only generic information on the Peer Review and no assertions that the Fancruft-ish content could stay regardless of citations, I strongly suggest you open a discussion, 3rd Opinion request, or RfC on the article's talk page to discuss the content you and Hullaballoo are warring over. Don't expect to have many people interested in supporting your side as the content is really on that edge of puffery and indiscriminate content that most editors are not very tollerant of. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of us have been going through this, on the article talk page, for about a month now. See Talk:Jared_Leto, Talk:Jared_Leto, Talk:Jared_Leto, and the warnings posted at User_talk:Earthh, not to mention several sections on my talk page, . As the comments made by Earth today in response to Nymf here User_talk:Ruhrfisch show, this is a user who just denies what should be apparent. We're dealing with an inexperienced user who's willing to work hard on articles, so I've been reluctant to possibly drive them away by filing an edit warring complaint or other formal process, but we've been discussing with them for a month now, and the responses are still little better than "You're wrong, I'm reverting again." I've been hoping we'd get through to them before they managed to attract a block or block warning, but there's really no difference what's going on today and what was going on a month ago (see my comment here ). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment as the peer reviewer in question, I basically said that I thought the removals of POV and peacock language had improved the article, but that it seemed like the removed material on Mr. Leto's assorted paramours might be included, provided it was properly referenced to reliable sources, and that it followed the model of FAs on similar figures (prominent actors or rock musicians). Please do not bicker about this on my talk page, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To Earthh - Hi, and thank you for posting here at the DRN! I'm glad that you have taken the time to file a dispute resolution post here, as it is a lot better to get all these issues aired out in the open. It allows everyone to take a step back from the situation, and look at things from a fresh perspective. Now I have taken a brief look at the article and the talk page, and I see that there are lots of different things under dispute. It's hard to sort out all the issues when the disputed content is fragmented across the page like this, so I think it will be a lot more efficient to focus on just one specific thing to start with. We can have a look at the most important point under dispute, and hopefully the results of that will shine some light on the other things as well. So, Earthh, if you will humour me for a while, I have a question: of the content you added that was removed by other editors, what sentence would you most like to go in the article, and why? All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ruhrfish; there were two problems with the article; one was a horrible fancrufty quality, lots and lots of peacock language. The other was an over-emphasis on the subjects personal life, sourced to non-reliable sources. The first point is non-negotiable; Wikipedia is not a fanzine, though there are other places where you can write about artists in a reverential tone. On the second point there is no objection to having a properly referenced section on the artist's social life. --John (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio


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

Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.


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

Yes.


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

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

Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.


 * How do you think we can help?

Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000.

Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * I presume this concerns Robert Zoellick. I went to the BLP noticeboard in a response to Currency 1's request for help,  But I found that this editor had  been attempting  to  t negative information about alleged failures in the general operation of the bank,  not in the least limited to his period,  on every page possible, in such a way that they reflected on him personally.  To some extent some it possibly might be appropriate to mention, but not in the extravagant way that it  was bering used,a gross violation of BLP,  which applies on talk pages also.  My statement on the talk p there summarizes my view of the matter. My resolution of it would be to ban currency 1 from any edits regarding him or the back. The editor admits in so many words on the BLPN page there "Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through..."   This editors handling of th topic is a disgrace to Wikipedia, which should not be used in this fashion.     That  the ed. should have carried it hereafter being rejected there indicates a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel. I have had some off wiki correspondence with the ed, which supports my view that there is no understanding whatsoever about WP not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if we reject her here, she will find yet another place for this. I conclude   that I probably initially  used my admin role in too restrained a fashion on this--instead of warning, I should have blocked. If any other admin wants to do so, I'll support it. It seems the only way of ending this dispute.
 * I try to avoid bringing up my political opinions here, but I have no love for any aspect of the world financial system, either in aggregate or in detail, and those who know me will know I am putting this as mildly as possible. But Wikipedia is not the place to bring it down, however much it may deserve it, and personal abuse is not the method.  DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:
 * On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though [Hilary Clinton] previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read the entry at the BLP noticeboard from July, I would say that User:Currency1 is on thin ice. If she again restores her proposed material to our article on Robert Zoellick she risks being blocked for violation of WP:BLP. That is, for inserting unsourced negative material. The only way she can make any headway at all (if she insists in working on this article, which may not be a good choice given her COI) is to make a case on the article's talk page which is so persuasive that other editors reach a consensus to support her view. If so, someone else could edit the article to add his material. It is conceivable that appropriate secondary sources on these questions about Zoellick's personal situation may exist, but Currency1 has so far not found any. There is more discussion at Talk:Robert Zoellick. I agree with what DGG had to say there. He has read the sources but could not find support for the assertions that Currency1 wanted to add to the article. I suggest that people read Demiurge's comment also. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio closing comments
Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Wikipedia articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)
I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio:
 * "If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:

"US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. (The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 )" and "President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.(April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, )"

My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair.

Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him.

About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The documents I am citing speak for themselves. The statements of the officials which I gave you are sufficient evidence to support the fact that the US Congress has refused to approve the World Bank's capital increase.  The only evidence that is missing from the sources I cited is knowledge which parts of the US Congress are responsible for vetting the capital increase and acting on it.  Mr. Zoellick himself stated that one of the responsible entities is the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (See Mr. Zoellick's response to the question from Tom Barkley of Dow Jones: "Senator Kerry on the Foreign Relations Committee, which is the authorizing committee in the Senate, has made similar statements."web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:22556211~menuPK:34476~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html  I trust this interview establishes the connection between Mr. Zoellick's presidency of the World Bank and the capital increase) After hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on accounting irregularities at the World Bank, including cost over-runs on the renovation of the World Bank's headquarters and over-charges to World Bank borrowers, the US Congress required independent arbitration to improve accountability. When the reforms required by Congress in the appropriations legislation did not materialize and the World Bank stonewalled a Government Accountability Office investigation into corruption that this legislation was intended to address, the US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank.  The statement of Senator Lugar, ranking member in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on the end to the Gentlemen's agreement, is a reliable source to support my assertion.  There are also other reliable sources on the demise of the Gentlemen's agreement.  Please do not continue ad hominem attacks.  I am a lawyer who was simply trying to do her job and enforce the law. Currency1 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if any of my remarks came across as ad hominem - I can assure you that they were not intended to reflect on you personally. I don't really have anything more to add to my previous comment, though, other than to reiterate that it is important to be careful when using primary sources and to avoid any original research or synthesis of sources. As I probably count as an involved user now, I will leave any decisions about the consensus found here and about what to do with this thread to the other clerks. Yours — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your time spent in reviewing the primary sources. I appreciate your advice that these sources establish that the gentlemen's agreement for the US to appoint the President of the World Bank has ended and that the US Congress refused to approve the World Bank's general capital increase without reform of the World Bank. I understand that where you disagree with Mediation Cabal's previous mediator is that these sources must be used with care, based upon original research and synthesis of sources. Here is a reliable secondary source which synthesizes these two assertions. Bloomberg's Sandrine Rastello states that the US should use its approval of the World Bank's general capital increase as a quid-pro-quo for appointment of an American as World Bank president. This reliable secondary source supports the facts that there is no longer agreement that the US may appoint the World Bank President, that the Gentlemen's Agreement ended, and that the US Congress has not approved the general capital increase for the World Bank. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-06/geithner-may-back-lagarde-to-keep-american-at-world-bank.html These facts, supported in primary sources and synthesized in the Businessweek article, are required to keep Robert Zoellick's bio from misleading Wikipedia's readers. Currency1 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Business Week piece that you link to, suggests that, far from the Gentlemen's Agreement being unequivocally over, some people - very influential people - are fighting very hard to keep it in place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Demiurge's comment confuses who may select the President and the nationality of the President. The gentlemen's agreement is that: "the US would name the President of the World Bank and Western Europe the Managing Director of the IMF." http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/k-kanagasabapathy/article2091132.ece  The Businessweek piece clearly supports the primary sources, which provide that the US may no longer automatically appoint the President of the World Bank.  Instead, the US must now bargain with the other members of the World Bank who also have a role to play in the appointment process.Currency1 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I'm confusing the question of who may select the leading figure of such organisations, with the question of the nationality of the figure, then the personal opinion of K. Kanagasabapathy, to which you just linked, also does so; his very next paragraph (right after what you just quoted) says "the legitimacy and undemocratic nature of this process of selecting a MD mainly based on one's nationality had been debated as part of IMF governance reform". I notice he doesn't mention Zoellick at all; I guess because Zoellick himself is not really very central to the general topic of monetary governance reform, nor vice versa. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So Demiurge finally agrees that the Gentlemen's Agreement is over? He is now arguing relevance, but this is not the point now that the Businessweek article answers original research and synthesis of sources. The relevance to Mr. Zoellick's bio is that Mr. Zoellick, as the last US President of the World Bank that the World Bank's members allowed to be appointed by the US under the Gentleman's Agreement, failed to preserve the Gentleman's Agreement.Currency1 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that it's clear the Gentlemen's Agreement is over. I think the question of how the next head of the World Bank is appointed, will only be settled when the next head of the World Bank is appointed.


 * Furthermore, which independent reliable source says that it was a failure on Zoellick's part to preserve this agreement? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Zoellick bio cited below gives the misleading impression that it is up to the White House to select the next President of the World Bank. The question how the next head of the World Bank is appointed is already set out in reliable primary sources http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/22885978/DC2011-0006(E)Governance.pdf, and is substantiated by the Businessweek article. It will be up to the 187 members of the World Bank to appoint Robert Zoellick's successor. Demiurge, I did not state, as you are accusing me, that "it was a failure on Zoellick's part to preserve [the Gentlemen's Agreement]." I simply drew the conclusion from these facts that Robert Zoellick's presidency ended the Gentleman's Agreement.


 * "United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former U.S. First Lady and former U.S. Senator from New York, has frequently been mentioned as a possible successor to President Zoellick at the end of his term in mid-2012. Clinton has publicly expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a possible second Obama term). Anonymous sources cited by Huffington Post claimed that Clinton had been in discussions with the White House about leaving her present position to assume leadership of the World Bank. The White House declined to comment and a spokesman for Clinton was quoted by Huffington Post as denying that Clinton wanted the job or had held conversations with the White House about it.[32]" Currency1 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think you're just misunderstanding the article. It's not suggesting that Clinton was in discussions with the White House because the White House appoints the World Bank's President. It's suggesting that Clinton was in discussions with the White House because her job at the time ("her present position") was working for the White House (for which, read, for the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government). And she would have to leave that job to take up the World Bank job. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It was okay to revert my edits, even though they were supported by reliable primary and secondary sources and informed Wikipedia's readers of the notable fact that President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended? What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary?Currency1 (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio closing comments (second time)
I did say that I would avoid closing this thread myself, but it seems that this discussion is no longer productive, and there is no sign of intervention from other editors. The opinion of all the neutral editors involved so far has been that the material that Currency1 suggests should not be inserted into the article, and it seems that discussion here is simply dragging out the issues, rather than resolving them. Due to their conflict of interest, I recommend that Currency1 restrict themselves to making suggestions for inclusion on the article's talk page, and I think that further discussions should be held there. If Currency1 is not happy with the responses received so far then the next logical step would be to file a request for comments on the article's talk page to assess support on the edits from the wider community. Again, if you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 10:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Bill Williams


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

The main disagreement is over whether this sentence can be added to the article: "He is also the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby." The source says "He [Williams] might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" The disagreement is over whether the "might be" in the sentence applies to the "only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers". One editor is argueing that it does not therefore we can say that he is the only sportsmen to do so, while myself and another editor are argueing that it means he might be the only sportsmen and therefore should not be added using this source. So far no other sources have been provided that cleary state that he is and no other editors have left an opinion.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

There are two threads on the talk page discussing this Talk:Sonny Bill Williams and Talk:Sonny Bill Williams. These also contain other disagreements, but the sentence mentioned in the overview seems to be the most contentious.


 * How do you think we can help?

Currently consensus is weak so it would be good to get some other editors involved to assess whether the citation can be used to justify saying Williams is the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby.

AIR corn (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I would just like to say that i support keeping the wording that SBW is the only boxer-international rugby player for a few reasons. 1. Most importantly the wording from a reputable source states he is in fact as is mentioned on the Wikipedia article. 2. I asked for and did not recieve an answer to my request that if he is not the only boxer-international player, then could i please have the names of any other boxer-international rugby players? The fact that a name could not be produced backs-up my interpretation of the sentence from the reference. 3. There has been an unnecessary edit war over a detail that is proven from the source material and reality. This edit war did not start until BiggerAristotle started editing the article not too long ago. That is to say the detail of boxer-international rugby player has been in the article for many months without any objections or challenges until very recently. I hope this is solved soon. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The source says no such thing and this reflects S-A's fundamental misunderstanding of English. If he can't understand the sentence in the source correctly, I would question if he is competent to edit English Wikipedia.
 * 2. The lack of a suggested alternative rugby player-boxer proves nothing. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence and proof. Instead, could S-A please list every single current international rugby player and cite a reliable source for each which states that they are not also pursuing a career in boxing?
 * 3. The 'edit war' did not start until Suid-Afrikaanse started edit warring. He appears to have issues of ownership around the article. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (Uninvolved editor's passing comment.) Strictly speaking, this seems a content dispute. We need only consult the single source whose sense is in dispute. Its author speculates: "He [Williams] might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers." A source which said "might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and is the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers," would support Suid-Afrikaanse's assertion. But that's not what this source says: the speculative "might be" applies to the entire sentence, which cannot be used to draw further conclusions (see WP:OR). BiggerAristotle's source interpretation is therefore correct. Haploidavey (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to BA questioning my ability to edit English Wikipedia other than to say it is a suggestion that lacks good faith. I have shown with a mass of examples that i am more than capable to edit in English. On the other hand i actually could prove that there is no other professional boxer-international rugby player. This can easily be done by looking at the world rankings of a few of the higher weight divisions to see whether their are any such players in that list. Perhaps BA would also like to check for himself on boxrec. My point is you will not find one because this is in keeping with what was initially stated in the reference. Once again i say the "might" applies only to his being courted because his being courted is the issue of contention depending upon ones own definitions eg. is Dan Carter's agreed sabbaticals considered courting as compared to the NZRU's initial attempts to lure SBW to NZ? This is what the author was unsure of. Perhaps he could of been more grammatically clear about it so this unnecessary debate would never have needed to start in the first place, but it should be quite clear by now to any person of serious SBW knowledge that the source means he is the only pro boxer-intl rugby player.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Suid-Afrikaanse, you evidently have a thorough personal knowledge of this topic but we can't generate encyclopedic "facts" from personal knowledge or informed surmise. Nor can we use logical arguments to justify our reasoning and conclusions, then present these as facts. We rely solely on conclusions drawn by reliable sources, not editors' personal opinion, no matter how well informed. It really is that simple. I'm afraid the process you've outlined immediately above amounts to synthesis, editorialising and original research. Haploidavey (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As i said before: i added the boxer-rugby detail only because of what i read from the reference. I am just saying all the other evidences back-up this reference. I am not saying i added this source because of my previous reasoning. That is all. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am a neutral mediator in regard to this dispute. My comments will be limited to only the question presented in the "Dispute Overview" section. Let me start out by saying that if the sentence could in good faith be said to be ambiguous then using it for any purpose which would require analyzing it or interpreting it would be forbidden as original research, but the sentence is clearly unambiguous. The "might" clearly applies to both dependent clauses in the first independent clause of the sentence (the remaining independent clause of that compound sentence being "Williams also has stories to tell" following the conjunction "but"). If the "might" were to only affect the first dependent clause, that clause ought to be able to be removed from the sentence without making it ungrammatical, but doing so does in fact make it ungrammatical: "He might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" gives "He the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers." Even if a logical argument could be made for leaving "be" in the sentence, you would have "He be the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" which is equally ungrammatical. The verb "be" is clearly used to correspond with "might," with the auxiliary verb "might" modifying "be" and, being the only verb in that independent clause. The verb and its modifier thus clearly modify both of the dependent clauses. The context of the usage in the story in which it occurs also clearly supports that conclusion, but that observation is not necessary to confirm the foregoing analysis. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Suid-Afrikaanse is right about what the source is claiming. The quote in the overview of this dispute omitted the last part of the sentence, which is crucial for understanding the meaning; editors who didn't actually look at the source won't have got the whole picture. Here is the quote as it appears in the source:"He might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers, but Williams also has stories to tell." The sentence structure here is "He might be X, but he is also Y" which is used when the speaker wants to downplay "X" and play up "Y", but when X and Y are both statements of fact. For example, I found It might be ugly but Nissan's Juke is immensely drivable, and Darcy Michael might be lazy but he is also very funny. (Funnily enough, both websites are from Vancouver - maybe Google is trying to get me to move?) Anyway, in the Sonny Bill Williams interview, both "the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks" and "the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" are intended as statements of fact, in my opinion. However, even though I think this is the case, I do not think the claim should be put in the article with no qualification. Wikipedia's guideline on identifying reliable sources says: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." I have strong reason to suspect that the source for the claim of being the only sportsman simultaneously having boxing and international rugby careers is Sonny Bill Williams himself. If you check page 2 of the article, one of the "skip to" blurbs summarizes that passage like this: "'After all, he is the only rugby player who has held a simultaneous career in boxing,' he says." This "he says" is telling, and to me it seems reasonable to assume that Williams is the source of the claim based on this. Also, given the grammatical errors in the source, it doesn't look like it has been very carefully copy-edited, which is not a good indication for its standard of fact-checking; but above all, a newspaper interview probably isn't the most reliable type of source for this kind of claim anyway. The best kind of source, in my opinion, would be a book of statistics that deals with all past and present players of rugby (or boxers), or something similar. The interview only deals with one player, and so there is not as much incentive to thoroughly check all the facts. Under the circumstances, I would want to see more evidence before the claim is added in. The case would be a lot clearer if other sources can back up this claim. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius  ♫</b> 13:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree with your interpretation of 'might be...but also'. This could mean that he is X but is also Y, or it could mean that he might be X but is also Y. Both are possible. If he actually were X, it would be clearer for the source to say 'he is X but is also Y' or, for the sort of effect you suggest, 'although he is X, he is also Y'.
 * In addition, if the source did mean to claim that he is the only boxing rugby player, he certainly isn't the only man to be courted by the All Blacks, as a knowledge of recent rugby history or a quick web search both show, casting serious doubt on the quality of the source and its fact-checking.
 * Aside form the interpretation of this sentence I (unsurprisingly) agree with your view of the source. I doubt if any really good quality source would make this sort of claim anyway, as it is by its nature so difficult to know for sure. It would require an author with knowledge of every one of the thousands international rugby players and of what they do in their spare time. --BiggerAristotle (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, i never looked at it this way Mr. Stradivarius. But your interpretation actually makes sense grammatically.

Correction for BiggerAristotle: actually all evidence would point to SBW being the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks. The NZRU went out of their way to court and lure SBW to join them. No other player has been pursued in such fashion to return from abroad. Just thought i would correct you there.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All evidence? This article from 2003 states that Rupeni Caucaunibuca was courted by the All Blacks.
 * This one says that Carl Hayman was being courted by the NZRU to return from England.
 * This one says that James O'Connor was courted by the NZRU.
 * This one says something similar about Quade Cooper. ("New Zealand officials tried to lure him back with the carrot of All Blacks representation.")
 * These sources, and others which refer to Benji Marshall, Frank Bunce, Michael Jones etc, are obviously all wrong. Thank you for correcting me. BiggerAristotle (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. Okay mate. You can believe whatever you want if that helps you sleep at night. I do not say i am a SBW fan for no reason. I say it because i am very knowledgeable when it comes to him. The word "court" as applied in the references you mention is very loose. Courting can be as simple as telling someone to come from abroad to play for you. This in actuallity is what all your references suggest. It is one thing to try and convince someone to play for you, it is a whole new sphere to see the way the NZRU and even Graham Henry rolled out the red carpet for SBW. It is also another thing to be allowed to hold professional boxing bouts in your contract and to be chosen to represent the All Blacks after not even playing a single game in the Super competition. That is what "courting" really means- not what you would like to believe, which if understood according to you would simply apply to every overseas player whom the NZRU would like to see play for them. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So, are you aware of a more reliable source for the disputed claim? If you can find one it will make things a lot easier. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Suid-Afrikaaanse, you might be knowledgeable about Williams (and here I mean 'might be', not 'are', in case you're confused) but you clearly know very little about the context he's involved in, specifically New Zealand rugby union over the past few years. Of course when other sources use words like 'courted' they don't mean it in the way that you understand it, or in the way the SMH source uses it. Of course everyone else is too simple to understand what sources mean by that word, and we're very grateful to you, a renowned Sonny Bill expert, for keeping us right.
 * The fact that you state so proudly you are a huge fan suggests you might not have the objectivity necessary to edit the article. And, to avoid any more misunderstandings, by 'might not have', I mean that you don't. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clerk's warning - at the top of this page it says: "Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them." Questioning Suid-Afrikaanse's ability to edit definitely counts as escalating this dispute, rather than diffusing it. Let's keep comments on content, rather than commentators, so that this thread can stay productive. If personal comments continue I'm afraid I will have to close this discussion. Thanks. Also, BiggerAristotle, I think we should leave this business of "might be" behind us, as it is distracting us from the main point - whether the reference is suitable to back up the claim in the article. Let's wait to see if Suid-Afrikaanse finds any other sources than back up the claim, as it would change the nature of this dispute considerably. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mr Strad. To me, the whole business of 'might be' seems central to the suitability of that source.
 * My comments on SA's ability as an editor follow from his claims that he is some kind of expert on this and that we should just take his word for it. I think this is more than just a disagreement on content, but relates to Suid Afrikaanse's approach to the article - behaving like he owns it and nobody else is qualified to edit it. He has elsewhere claimed that I am being disruptive in my edits to this article and acting as a sock puppet, so it's difficult for me to take him seriously or make charitable assumptions about him. BiggerAristotle (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Mr. Stradivarius for your patient and cool demeanour. Unfortunately i have not found a reliable source. So i guess until i do there is no point sustaining this repetitive argument with BA. I still agree with your grammatical understanding of the statement. However, i also agree with your request that it should be removed until a more reliable source is found. Thankyou again for your constructive critique and advice.

Now on to BA. I could respond to your "court" issues- but to what end? I want to put this and the boxer/rugby statement behind me now. However, i will say regarding my being unfit to edit SBW: i am definitely fit to edit the article. If you look at my edit history you will find i only add statistical information and detail (e.g. Tries or records). I have no room for sentimental edits because i know what is required of me as an editor on Wikipedia. Just because i have disagreements with editors does not make me unfit to edit. Disagreements and differences of opinion are natural. It is how they are resolved that matters. Also, i do not think you should be taking my suspicion of your sockpuppetry too offensively. Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you were dealing with an editor who had an account that overwhelmingly only lay in wait to edit the SBW article, yet was not a fan of the sportsmen. Add to that, the editor is very uncompromising in his views- that happen to have the feel of an anti-SBW bias. Wouldn't you also suspect that person was simply using his account to express a certain bias, while you can also imagine them having another account they use to edit articles they perhaps are a fan of? So i think you should be a little more understanding and should also drop the negative toned sarcasm you seem to love employing e.g. not just upon myself, but also Mr. Stradivarius. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't directed any sarcasm to Mr Stradivarius, I don't think. I am genuinely grateful to him, as I am to the other editors who have got involved, for their reasonable responses to all this.
 * Regarding your edits to the article, you don't just add facts. You have added your interpretation of various sources, such as what he is well known for, or trivial 'records'. If you think a good article is just a chronological list of 'facts' that appear in newspapers, with no editorial judgement used to decide what is important enough to include, then I don't think you understand what an encyclopedia is for.
 * Your statement that I am 'lying in wait' (with what motive, I don't know) to disparage Williams is pure fantasy, as well as insulting. I actually am something of a fan of Williams, and I'm well aware he is an excellent rugby player. However, I want to see an article that is well-written and objective, rather than clumsy, inaccurate and fawning, and I have tried to improve it on each count. Most other editors have generally agreed with my changes. You, on the other hand, have arrogantly reverted almost every edit I have made.
 * The reason I suggested you were not competent to edit the English version of Wikipedia is not personal at all - I'm sure you are a nice person. It just relates to your ability as an editor in English, and your judgment as to what material should be included. You have made numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes in your posts, struggled to understand the meaning of the SMH article, and your username is in another language, so it occurred to me that English might not be your native language.
 * WP:COMPETENT lists several types of incompetence, that I think might apply to you - language difficulty, bias-based incompetence, factual incompetence, newbie incompetence, and grudges in particular. It's probably clear why I think each of these might apply, but I can explain in more detail if you want.
 * If anyone is using their account to express a certain bias, it is you. You appear to have no other interests here. You admit you are a big fan of Williams but don't acknowledge how much that influences your editing. You claim that you are very knowledgeable about the subject, and act as if that gives you authority to decide what should be in the article, irrespective of what reliable sources say about it. You act as if you own the article, and you make personal attacks when an editor tries to tone down the exaggerations you want to keep in the it.
 * If I've offended any other editors in all this, I apologise. For someone who insults me as you have, however, I'll use whatever tone I choose. BiggerAristotle (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, i am just going to leave it at that. I could respond in my own defence very ably, but this argument just keeps going around in circles with no benefit to anyone. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Road coordinates

 * and many others.

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

We appear to have tag-team from the US roads project, editing M5 motorway (a UK road) in an attempt to quash the use of coordinates. In itself, this would be a mere content dispute, but they're claiming consensus where non exists, following a highly confrontational debate in August. Given all the ownership, calls for voting, failure to understand or apply policy, and so on, in that debate, it's clear this isn't going away. I readily admit to being an involved party; some neutral oversight might be useful. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Not yet.


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

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


 * How do you think we can help?

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


 * Not sure what to say, other than that I'm taking the GRE tomorrow, and that I think this is going to come down to a vote eventually, because both parties are firmly entrenched in their positions and aren't budging. Oh, and Floydian is a Canada roads editor. --Rschen7754 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember when policy, not the whim of the mob, used to hold sway. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you referring to that should hold sway here? Policy was decided by the whim of the mob, for the minority shouldn't rule the majority. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Floydian is active in the US roads project, is he not? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My involvement is limited in two areas. We mutually review one anothers articles, as we have a common understanding of what makes an FA (with several dozen under USRD and one FA and one FL under CRWP), and we mutually craft policies together so that articles are consistent, at least across North America; the talk page for WP:CRWP is essentially inactive, and WT:USRD attracts a far broader range of road editors.
 * I'll also note that Martinvl is a UKRD editor, and while not as active in this particular discussion, has backed the concept of not flooding the articles with coordinates. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I back the concept of not flooding the articles with coordinates, too. Since no-one has done or proposed doing that, it's irrelevant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy, this same issue (or something similar) was brought to DRN recently, and we suggested an RFC be opened on the matter? Did you open an RFC? Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They didn't agree to honor the outcome of proposed RFC, so no. --Rschen7754 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that. Rschen77454 presumably refers to this farce. Note my question there; and the response given (an my point above about "failure to understand or apply policy"). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's more alarming is that there is no location information in M5's junction list that doesn't involve clicking a GeoHack link. Coordinates are fine and good, but we really should be telling our readers where the junctions are without having to click the coordinate links.  In what region or county is the junction?  In or near what city is the junction located?  We're not limited by paper size, so there's no reason to exclude this information. –Fredddie™ 22:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Visible coordinates do specify a location. If you believe that more textual info is needed, you -or anyone - are free to add that as well; meanwhile, as Wikipedia has literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of visible coordinates, they are clearly accepted by the community. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be the only motorway in the UK with coordinates listed for each junction. Too often Wikipedia seems to be about childish disputes by people who want to rock the boat or those who believe "My Way for the Highway". I like coordinates in articles and use them frequently to get a better understanding through maps and images - I just don't understand why we need this list, in this place, against normal usage. That, to me, is the same as against accepted policy. I think you could make better use of your time, than squabbling here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many articles with lists of coordinates; often in table-columns. The only reason there are none on roads articles would appear to be because of a small group of editors who falsely claim there is consensus is against having them or even, bizarrely, claim that "coordinates columns arent (sic) allowed". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because not a single editor of these articles agree that there should be as many as you'd like to shove down our throats, despite being told no, to quote my grandma, "umpteen dozen times". You seem to have some backwards notion that because they are on other articles, you have the larger backing of the community. I still have only seen PigsontheWing and Tagishsimon advocating their position, and half a dozen + editors repeatedly saying "its clutter" "too much information", etc. No matter how you try to lawyer this, its 2 versus a lot more than 2. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and if this were fringe medical science, you'd have been permanently blocked for repeatedly hounding the question to deaf ears. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "…not a single editor of these articles agree that there should be…" Since both Tagishsimon and I think they should be there, and have edited the article to that effect, that's plainly a lie. Or would you like to explain why we don't count? Also, threats of blocking are against policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I ever threaten? I only see an "if this were...then this would have". Secondly, the contributions to those articles by the two of you are limited strictly to this coordinate discussion. You are not an active contributor to highway articles, and I'll be damned if I ever change my stance on that. You have made edits to highway articles, most of which have been promptly reverted, but you are not a regular editor of this subject of the encyclopedia. The dozens of editors that have established WP:HWY, WP:UKRD, WP:USRD and WP:CRWP have more weight than two editors desperate to inflict their change, regardless. You constantly say "well thats just road editors and one project can't create its own consensus." I beg to differ. We've established our consensus, and nobody from the "general community" has supported yours. Until there are more people advocating what you want, your cries fall on deaf ears at this point in time. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "failure to understand or apply policy": QED. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to try to type up a witty retort to Andy, but it's not worth my, or anybody else's, time. Instead of trying to out-policy each other, we should be working together.  People who like coordinates should listen to the concerns of the people who like roads and vice versa.  People who like roads should be willing to compromise with people who like coordinates and vice versa. –Fredddie™ 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone - I see that you didn't work out any general guidelines in the end. Maybe this will be a good test case for how guidelines could be written, or if they are necessary. Anyway, in the last DRN thread on coordinates, I remember convincing arguments being made that some roads articles were suited for coordinates and some were not, and that there didn't seem to be a compelling argument one way or the other based solely on content policies. For these reasons, I think "consensus rules" in this debate, as it were, and to reach a consensus here both sides will need to compromise. When compromise is the issue, I think mediation is a useful tool. How would you feel about taking this to the mediation cabal? This may give the editors involved a strong sense of deja vu, but some improvements have been made at the cabal (with more on the way), so you may find it a more attractive option than you did last time. Let me know what you think. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What sort of improvements? --Rschen7754 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearing out the backlog, new requirements for mediators and for cases, and a likelihood that your dispute will be dealt with fairly quickly. Oh, and a new colour scheme. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to give it a shot, let's see if the others agree. --Rschen7754 06:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah! A new colour scheme :) Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  06:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to give it a shot. Although, I was never aware of the previous color scheme, so the new one means nothing to me :( –Fredddie™ 22:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It used to look like this :) Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have "general guidelines", reflecting compromise reached after earlier discussion. As I noted above, the problem is people claiming consensus where non exists, in order to circumvent that compromise, and an attendant disregard for established Wikipedia policy. This manifests as ownership, assertion of majority rights, and other bad-faith behaviours by those who, to use some of their own words, represent themselves as "the regulars" and "the patrons" (yes, really), and thus as having some special authority. If mediation can address all (or any) that, I'm all for it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbi


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

The article contains a total of six sources at present. Among these, four are about a hundred years old or more. All of these are written by non experts. Are these sources reliable sources? Here are the sources:

(The last source is supposed to be from 1995 according to the citation. But it was actually published in 1916.)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




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

Yes.


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

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

Tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page. But was referred to here.


 * How do you think we can help?

By answering whether these four sources are reliable sources.

<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

MangoWong, you were referred to WP:RSN, not here. You had previously tagged the article to be checked for reliable sources, and I did that. I also tried to explain why they are ok even though I would prefer more modern sources. This issue has been discussed across numerous articles due to your misunderstanding of WP:RS. RSN is indeed the correct forum & I encourage you to use it. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you did refer this to RSN. I did misread your comment. But since this is already here, I think it may be better to get advice from here. We were told on a previous occasion at the RSN that they are unfamiliar with sourcing issues about Indian caste articles, and it was suggested that we take it somewhere else. So, this is probably the right place.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, WT:IN would be a better place, in the event that WP:RSN cannot come to any consensus. What makes you think that people here are more India-focussed than people at WP:RSN? - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a dispute situation. The WT:IN is not meant for handling disputes. So, I feel it would not be an appropriate venue. I am not suggesting that the folks here are more India focussed than RSN. I do not think it necessary to have an India focus to discuss these issues. We have already had a dispute being brought here and being given a closure. The folks here did not express an inability to resolve the issue. Secondly, the closure statement of the earlier dispute Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4 may be relevant to the present dispute, and may make it easier to resolve the issue.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The dispute is about reliability. That is what RSN is designed for: assessing reliability. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the RSN is designed to assess the reliability of sources. But despite its design, it has expressed an inability to do so for the present subject. So, this is the logical place.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 18:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this seems possibly to be another one of your memory lapses. This was the RSN thread and it explains that the issue which could not be adjudicated on was synth/weight. They were happy to comment on reliability. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No memory lapse there (and stop suggesting that I have had any memory lapse previously. Don't WP:BAIT) They weren't happy to comment on reliability. -<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 18:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, we'll do it here, just to keep you happy, Please note that I added none of these sources to the article and that I would be as pleased as anyone else to see more, and more modern, sources used.
 * Census: clearly, a census report is a compilation of data and the manner in which it is presented is de facto reliable, as it is an official report of the state. Unless proven otherwise, it is a reliable source and even if it was proven otherwise, it would still be worth commenting on. The compilers are "experts" in what they do, and much advice is taken. In this instance a part of that expertise was to classify various groups in various ways. The Kunbi article reflects that, although I would be pleased to see an alternative word to "scholars" in the relevant sentence
 * Jogendra Nath Bhattacharrya has an article here on WP, is cited by modern anthropologists such as Susan Bayly, and presents the alternate view to that propounded by the census. This is fine: we are showing two differing opinions using sources from around the same time.
 * Edward Balfour has a WP article. Like many members of the Indian Civil Service, he spent a lot of his time in scholarly pursuits while in the country. If there were more modern sources then I might not particularly rate him but the article notes specifically that the statements are his opinion. His major work was republished many times. In the context of how the article is written, it is ok although not of any special merit.R
 * R. V. Russell has an article,, although not a particularly inspiring one. This work is cited all over the place, per GBooks, In the Kunbi article, it is used to support a couple of etymology statements and in the absence of anything to contradict those statements I see nothing wrong with using the work of someone who was there, on the ground, and who was involved in compiling census information etc. Most of the censuses of that period involved producing much background material of a social/religious/anthropological etc nature rather than mere number crunching.

So, as I said on the article talk page, "I had already checked. In the absence of anything more modern, they are fine. The names are all well-known in the field of oriental studies. Sure, I would prefer something newer but that does not make them wrong, especially given that the article is carefully worded to put the attributed statements in context with regard to the time period". - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, seems like Sitush has made some good arguments for the sources to be included, though I agree with all parties involved that adding some more recent reliable sources would be the best course of action here. I think the most productive thing to do would be to just work on the article, rather than arguing about what's already there. It seems that all the editors involved agree with what should be in the article - the only thing that is holding us back here is someone who is willing to do the actual research and editing in order to put it in. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 09:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've collapsed this to preserve the flow of discussion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources being used are amateur (non scholarly), obsolete books, of a period from which even the government data and scholarly works are well known to be unreliable and or biased. They are being passed as reliable sources. These sources also base their conclusions on theories of anthropometry and the theory of "Aryan Invasion of India". Both these theories have little or zero academic standing now. These books are full of this type of material. I don't see how unqualfied eds could be expected to glean reliable data from these sources. I think it is best to stick to contemporary secondary sources.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 10:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think any editors here are trying to claim that these old sources represent the cutting edge of historical research. I see that Sitush has been busy adding modern references to the article, which will hopefully alleviate your concerns about the previous sourcing. There is no reason that old sources can't be included, but in most circumstances they should be used carefully, with language such as "in [year], [author] said [quote]"; care should also be taken that they do not give too much weight to viewpoints which have been refuted by subsequent research. I am curious as to what you think of Sitush's updates to the page today - is there still anything there that you feel is inappropriate? All the best. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot take the credit for much of today's additions but I generally support them. Some are mine but most are by User:Zuggernaut, who is hopefully not exceeding their topic ban because it is useful stuff. My access to sources on Kunbi is pretty limited, which is why I had added none at all until today. However, as a general rule I would much prefer to be adding content than fighting about removal of it - there have been far too many fights of late, mostly with people who very rarely add anything. We all have our different roles in working on this project, I guess, but I am wasting too much energy in debating removals that almost invariably turn out to be misguided in their understanding of WP:RS, WP:NOR. WP:SYNTH etc. It is a time sink and clearly bringing it here has not made it less of one. I've now run out of options of how to deal with these situations and get back to the high levels of actual content addition which once I did.
 * Anyway, back into the fray. Thanks for your time, and thanks to Zuggernaut for the ongoing improvements. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the condescending tone, through and through. Considering things like these Talk:Kurmi/Archive 3, I would say that the present behavior is saintly, and is a welcome improvement. I consider things like misrepresentations and OR etc. to be encyclopedic poison. If misrepresentations and OR (material from unreliable sources is OR) etc. are allowed to proliferate, it would make WP unusable. Who would want to use an encyclopedia which is loaded with misrepresentations and poor quality sources. That is why, it is necessary to spend time on taking down misrepresentations, OR etc. and to put a check on the use of unreliable sources etc. to prevent OR.
 * I have produced clear quotes to show that these sources are unreliable. We also have a policy on sourcing. WP:V. It says To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source… Since these source are not reliable, it would be against WP:V to use these sources. Again, since these sources are not reliable sources, material sourced from these sources would also be “original research” and thus be against the policy of WP:NOR. The WP:NOR says The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists...  WP:NPOV says Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.  These sources are  being used to do original research and they are being used to produce a picture which does not exist in reliable sources. This is against all the core policies of WP. If any sources, whether reliable or unreliable, can be used by attributing the name of the author, and if obsolete unreliable sources can also be used by attributing the year of publication, I too would start using any source in this manner. There is a user who has been asking me for help using some unreliable sources. I have refused, and encouraged the user to find better sources. I could start telling them that any sources can be used by attributing the name of the author, and the year of publication. I suppose same standards would apply. Thanks and regards.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W  ℳ 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * TLDR warning! Sorry, I thought that this was done and dusted, especially after recent developments at the article which have suitably reduced the weight by introducing more recent sources (great, and what I desired). If you consider my tone to have been condescending then my apologies for that, also. It was not my intention.
 * It is possible sometimes to read policies etc a little too literally and in its extreme some people can claim that to be wikilawyering. Whether that term fits you or not is beyond my purview because it is a consensus thing. The reverse also applies, ie: whether there is room for discretion in application of policy is a consensus thing. To my mind, context is important and I have tried to explain this to you on numerous occasions at numerous venues. I am not the only person to have done so, by a long way.
 * I do accept that there has been only one uninvolved person commenting on this particular issue. However, we do not have to cut an article back to "The Kunbi are an Indian community" (which is pretty much what would have resulted from your argument) simply because of issues regarding the various policies which you have referred to. What we can do is phrase that which we have access to in a manner that reflects the issues.If we adopted your stance - and it does have its place, I am sure - then Wikipedia content would be reduced dramatically and its usefulness reduced almost as much. Sometimes we have to make allowances, ensure that we present things in some sort of context, and hope that others can come along who are able to expand/modify/whatever based on their own resources of time and/or access.
 * I know that you were unhappy with the outcome of your last visit to this noticeboard - which was also arguably based on an over-literal interpretation of similar policies - and that you did wander around saying as much, but we do not always get what we think is right. It happens to me also, honest. I live with it. A quick example of what you have to live with is your frequent assertion that anything written by someone who is under the "rank" of professor and is written in a work that does not focus (hereafter, I paraphrase) for 300 pages entirely on, say, the etymology of a community's name is not compliant with policy. Sorry, but that is ludicrous in practice, however well supported in theory. Aside from anything else, there are plenty of oddball professors knocking around. We need some room to manoeuvre otherwise nothing happens. And if I am wrong about this then I will go out, buy a hat and eat it. You can have the photos :) Sitush (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, is there a specific thing in the current version of the article that you object to? Maybe the inclusion of a particular claim backed up by one of these old references, or wording that you think is not neutral? We really need to focus on specific things in order to work towards resolving the disputes on this page. Thanks — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I object to all the material which is adduced from these sources. Its all OR. I see no need to do OR on WP. We have explicit sources to say that all these sources are unreliable. We have core policies which prohibit material from unreliable sources, and we have clear policy extracts to show that anything sourced from unreliable sources is OR. I could go on to show policy after policy to show this point. There are good reasons for avoiding OR. These caste articles are teeming with unreliable sources, and during these past few months, caste articles have become a war zone due to OR from unreliable sources. (The present four sources are being used in a number of other caste articles too, and are invariably cause for friction.) Hundreds of people keep turning up, blow their tops, and keep getting blocked or banned. These articles had the war zone look from before I ever got to know them, and the war zone atmosphere continues, due to OR from unreliable sources etc. IMO. I look into other encyclopedias, and find that they too have a few articles on Indian castes. But they are usually very short. There is a reason why the caste articles in other encyclopedias are usually short. (I know this is not an argument for not having bigger articles, but I am trying to illustrate some other point.) There is simply too little encyclopedic info which is available out there. They generally do not contain the type of material which is causing friction here. I see no necessity to swamp WP articlespace with unreliable sources just to concoct big articles. If we don’t have proper sources, we can even delete the articles. Verifiability. I am not suggesting that we delete these articles, but only that we limit ourselves to not doing OR.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W  ℳ 11:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. It is easy to go into the article and see what is being sourced from these sources. It has inline citations, so, locating the material should be easy. I have not presented the material here to avoid swamping the place.


 * My concern is basically with those parts of the material which are sourced from unreliable sources, and cause friction. This material constantly gets reverted, and gets reinstated by claiming that it is properly sourced. Only that it is not properly sourced.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 12:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. Off the top of my head, none of the material at Kunbi relating to the sources in question has been reverted for a long time. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have checked. Since around the start of 2011 only one specific statement of the various cited to the sources mentioned in this thread has been the subject of any delete/reinstate cycle. That happened a couple of times (February and May) and was, perhaps inevitably, in relation to the shudra statement. It is one of several sourced to Balfour, but there were no complaints about the others so sourced. Anyone with more than a passing interest in Indian caste/community articles will be aware that the issue of shudra status is frequently subject to complaint, usually by members of the relevant community. The shudra issue has nothing to do with the reliability of the source and everything to do with what some people call "caste glorification": few people want to be classified as shudra, which was a menial and low ritual rank, and everyone seemingly wants to be related to the noble warrior rank of kshatriya. In practice, for many groups their ranking did change over time and place, and if this is the case with Kunbi then the solution is to provide the source to verify that.


 * As far as I can determine, and including all those who have edited the article since the start of the year, the only person who has so far actually challenged these sources on any policy grounds (originally reliability, but now seemingly everything that can possibly be thrown at a source) is MangoWong. So, the consensus appears to be that they are at least acceptable, even if perhaps not of the highest quality. The article has been massively improved while all this has gone on: someone has access to modern sources and is doing great work. I shall seek a better source for the shudra statement - there are quite a few out there. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * MangoWong, if your concern is with using older sources in general, then I think there is only so much we can do at this noticeboard. My understanding is that we may use these kind of sources in a similar way that we would use primary sources - that is, we can use them as reliable sources on their own opinions and on simple statements of fact that are obviously backed up by the source, but probably not anything else. If we use them for others' opinions or for more complicated statements of fact, then we would be getting into dubious territory. I don't think the problem here is original research as such, as it is not original, just very old; to me it seems more a problem of giving undue weight to viewpoints which may not be backed up by more recent scholarly research. I think all the uses of old sources in the present article are attributed to their authors - correct me if I'm wrong - although possibly their age could be more clearly shown in the article text. As it seems to be the use of old sources in general that you are questioning here, then maybe what you should do is start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, and link to it at WT:NPOV, and see if there is any appetite for clarifying the use of older sources in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there's anything specific in the present article that you would like to discuss, then we can do that here, but otherwise I don't think discussion here will be likely to change anything, and I think I will close this thread and keep an eye on the discussions you create. If you want you can create a draft proposal in your userspace and I can have a look before you post it, to help everything go smoothly. Let me know what you think. Regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush has already identified the point of friction. It is in this Kunbi section of the article.(ref #7) (there are three instances of ref #7 in the section. I am referring to the second instance.) Going through the citation, I am unable to find where it says what it is supposed to say.  Here’s a permanent link to the current version of the article. . The complete book is also available here.  There too, I could not find anything of the sort. If this citation does support our material, I would explain my views regarding what has been said above.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W  ℳ 12:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will explain anyway. My objection is about doing OR from unreliable sources. Not about sources being old. If these sources are to be regarded as primary sources, they should be used in the way primary sources are supposed to be used. To my way of thinking, the proper way of using primary sources is to establish a point through some secondary sources first, then show a quotation from some primary source to illustrate the same point. Illustrating some point directly, or adducing something from the primary sources in a stand-alone way, is OR IMO. This is what is being done in the sentence in question.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 12:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am pleased that you have now decided that the age of a source is not an issue. What is unreliable about the view of the administrators of the day, correctly placed in context within a Wikipedia article? Census commissioners and superintendents of the official printing/publishing house represented the official stance of the British administration. If those opinions are now outdated then we would present the modern view, by way of contrast and probably with a little more weight. So, just find sources for the more modern view, and add them.


 * Let's get to the real issue, shall we? You and I both know that your real concern here is your ongoing campaign to whitewash the varna) system from history, and if there is collateral damage in achieving success on that score then so what? Your argument across multiple forums has been that the classification is no longer officially recognised, and therefore should not appear. Of course, it is in fact still referred to by modern sources and is not a banned term even in India, although until recently you appeared to claim that it was, and then you found yourself unable to support it and, thankfully, backtracked a little.


 * The varna (and more specifically, shudra) issue has been discussed to death, most recently at WT:IN. After your involvement in umpteen article talk page epics, discussions at WT:IN, at ANI, at NPOVN and even here on a previous occasion, the situation has not changed substantially. There is no "friction", just poor contributors. The ranking in the Hindu varna system appears in practically every major Indian caste article & those who have objected to it in this particular article did so by introducing unsourced claims to a higher rank, not for the reasons which you advocate (ie: complete removal). You are entitled to your view that the entire varna issue should be ignored in articles but have consistently failed to achieve consensus regarding it. Wikilawyering to achieve your end is not a great idea. It failed the last time you came here regarding exactly the same "real" point, ie: get the shudra word out of an article. You cannot deny that the varna system existed and is arguably still significant in the mindset of many Indian people, one reflection of this being the many contributors who are so keen to emphasise/claim/boost their caste's rank. That you do not like articles to mention the system is irrelevant and revisionist. That you are unwilling even to type, going only so far as typing "S*****", suggests to me that you have an overly emotional involvement that is not dis-similar to a COI issue in its effect. All of this is unfortunate, but it is not a sourcing problem. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are the one who has an obsession with inserting this word. I have lost count of the number of times I have found you supporting or inserting this word by doing misrepresentations or OR or from off topic sources etc. For example, in the Lodhi article, you were supporting the insertion of this word by using a source in which the word "Lodhi" appears only once. It got deleted eventually, through consensus mind you. You were also supportive of inserting this word in infoboxes by doing OR. They too have been deleted. You were also supportive of inserting this word in the Kurmi article through misrepresentation. That too has been deleted now. How much should I recount to you. The reason for my not writing this word can be found on my talk page, in the last comment of this section.User talk:MangoWong. You can go on inserting this word, but not in violation of policy. The major upshot of this discussion, as I see it, is that you are going to have to use dated sources as primary sources. Please see WP:PRIMARY to understand the proper use of primary sources. You do not get to use them in a stand-alone way. First establish some point through some proper secondary sources, then you can use primary sources to illustrate the same point. That is not how the primary sources are being used in the article at present. See Kunbi, ref #7. There are three instance of ref#7. I am talking about the second instance of ref#7 in that section. And the source does not say anything like what it is supposed to say. So, also explain where the source says what it is supposed to say. I mean, show which sentences in the source support our sentence in the article. Here's a permalink to the version of the article to which this ref#7 relates.. Don't make me say this again, and try to concentrate on the issue at hand. If you want to propose new sources, you should do it on the article talkpage IMO.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 17:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the old "It's illegal. Well, it isn't in general use, but you can't claim that I was misrepresenting the information." argument.  MangoWong, it was you yourself who said "A lie is a lie".    Mr. Stradivarius, I strongly request that you read through this thread: .  It is long, but please read it all.  It provides an example of how MangoWong jumps from reason to reason in pursuit of a goal, and has great difficulty admitting mistakes while behaving harshly toward what he perceives as others' mistakes. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You wanna pay the lawyers if I get into legal problems for using that word?<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That depends. Do you plan on ever acknowledging that you were wrong when you repeatedly and insistently misrepresented the legal status of the word? JanetteDoe (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already said that I am an amateur on these matters. Yes, I was wrong in saying that the word is banned, but it does seem to have potential legal problems. It is generally taken to be banned in India and that is how I looked at it at the time when I said that. And when you asked to see the lawcode, I did show it to you immediately. Did I not? Would I do that if I wanted to misrepresent the situation?<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 01:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here follows a brief list of some modern works that refer to Kunbi as Shudra, some will be more reliable etc than others. Please could you indicate which of these would be acceptable to you as a bolster for or even replacement of the Balfour statement.


 * A
 * B
 * C
 * D
 * E
 * F
 * G
 * H


 * Obviously, if you can find sufficient reliable sources that say they were either not shudra (or were one of the other three ranks, or dalit) then the article would have to reflect the various strands of opinion. If none of the above are suitable then I'll just keep bringing more forward - there are loads of them & I am not going to spend too long analysing the things because my past experience is that it is a waste of my time. You tell me, MangoWong, which ones seem ok to you, or alternatively why they are not ok. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We're out of sync now due to MW's post of 17:19 8 October. Let me clarify: if Balfour is unreliable for the shudra statement then how come plenty of modern sources, and the self-confession of one Kunbi from long before Balfour, say the same thing? If Balfour described X as being handsome and hard-working then that is his opinion - it is subjective and somewhat irrelevant IMO but much that is added to these articles by caste members tends to be quotes of this nature (well, it is when the quotes favour their caste, at any rate). On this score Balfour is neither more nor less reliable than anyone else. I still do not understand the original research argument. How can a quote of a recognised commentator be original research? It might be fringe-y, for example, but it is not OR.
 * I do not have to propose sources at the article talk page or indeed anywhere else, unless there is some specific ruling in place for the subject matter. I have done so here as a courtesy to you and stress again that it is only yourself who has raised any policy-based objections to those sources in the last nine months or so. You are welcome to choose, although I know that the last time I tried to do this you then claimed that you would not do so because the whole concept "is a lie" - see this (that article moved on, but the shudra word is still in there).
 * And, for the record, I have never inserted the shudra word in any article: I have defended it, sure, but never originated it. I have worked on many caste articles where the rank was genuinely brahmin, kshatriya or vaishya - it is not as if I am on some sort of campaign to change all references to be shudra. My only campaign, if that is the correct word, is to ensure that the varna concept is not taken out completely. I'm not even bothering to address the rest of your comment: your ability to twist words/manipulate debate makes it a waste of my time & everyone else's, ie: a time sink. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so this is about the shudra issue. This is always going to be a tricky term to deal with, as it is divisive and political. I'm afraid I haven't read all of the discussion about shudra on WT:IN, so could you tell me if any kind of consensus was reached in that discussion as to how todeal with the "shudra" term in articles? Wider community consensus on how to portray these issues is probably a good place to start, in my opinion. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 01:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The upshot of the discussions (as I see it) at WT:IN was that the term was being used excessively, in a spiteful way. As a tit for tat to vain people who have an interest in pushing rubbish kshatriya claims. And it was found that this should not happen, and articles should contain material only in keeping with WP:DUE, and not simply to counter rubbish kshatriya claim. The way to deal with rubbish kshatriya claim is to delete them, and not to counter them in an undue manner. It was not discussed whether unreliable sources should/ should not be used or whether misrepresentations should / should not be done. Your contention that the present four sources be treated like primary sources is helpful enough for me.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 04:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to the discussion at WT:IN. Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. It was started when it was found that a passing comment, from an off topic book was being used (by reading the latter half of a sentence only) in the Lodhi article. The full paragraph did become available later, but the ref was still deleted, through consensus.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 04:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually sourcing did get a discussion, and at least one editor said "When a dispute arises, we should remove varna claims wherever they cannot be sourced to rock-solid, academic literature from authors of excellent repute in this specific area."<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 07:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is misrepresentation and cherry-picking yet again. It is futile trying to deal with you - just go ahead and do whatever you want, since you are never, ever wrong or misguided. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Did as you said.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 14:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have now reverted because I have obtained the proof I wanted. You merely took out the shudra bit and left all the other stuff that you had been claiming to be unreliable. This is a serious case of POV from you, as I have known all along. Please indicate which of the other sources I listed above are acceptable to you. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is sick of you to agree to something and then backtrack on it. Zuggernaut has been doing major work on that article and you think I would now go about tearing it apart? If you did not mean it, why would you lie to me?<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 15:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, what is "sick" is your constant wikilawyering in order to push an invalid POV. I have never adopted such a drastic tactic before and I do not intend to do so again, but numerous people have been put at a disadvantage by your incessant twisting of words, mangling of policies, speciousness and misrepresentations. As expected, you have rejected all of my sources listed above. I also know that you will reject every one that I propose in future, just as you did at another article. If needs be, I will take this entire issue to RfC because it is absolutely ludicrous and the more people see this, the better. Numerous people have been involved (mostly on individual talk pages) over the last few months since you registered your username here and support for your revisionism has been extremely slim, mostly emanating from sockpuppets (not socks related to you, but socks of others who wanted to glorify their caste). Generally, those people get so fed up of your attitude that they just cannot cope with the gymnastics: you are very clever at that, but you are wrong. Varna was a highly significant and very complex part of Indian history, most but not all Hindu communities were within the system (or specifically excluded from it), and we should not simply whitewash the situation because of some Hindu nationalism or whatever ideology it is that drives you to do this. Why should we AGF regarding you when it is plain that you are in fact lawyering in bad faith etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish you would. This has been quite a resource leak, and demoralizing to see it going on and on and on. JanetteDoe (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An example of a thread where MangoWong rejected all sources, although others were less sweeping is at Talk:Kurmi/Archive_3.I cannot recall that MW has ever removed "brahmin", "kshatriya" or "vaishya" (the other varna ranks) from an article, so sometimes it may indeed be true that inaction speaks louder than words. In July they even suggested replacing the Shudra term with "Dalit", despite the two being completely different things and there being no source for dalit - it was a purely emotive choice based on their perception that shudra = "subhuman" (another statement that was never verified). Is an RfC the way forward here? We do need some sort of resolution of this situation, which has spread like a poison across numerous forums. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You just keep googling randomly and bringing up non academic &/ non expert &/ off topic &/ passing comments &/ misrepresentations to be used as sources. Why would I NOT reject them all? Yo ur sources are rubbish. And I had suggested Dalit because you and your sidekicks were at that time using this word to spread OR lies in a completely unsourced way (by falsely claiming that you had the source, but it was elsewhere in the article.) And you were stubbornly refusing to remove the OR lies. You are just trying to perform a lynching on me by taking advantage of systemic bias because you are stumped and perturbed by my ability to fish out and delete misrepresentations etc.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 00:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC) You have been taking me to ANIs every time I have been stomping down on misrepresentations or OR lies etc. You can continue to institute scores of RFCs on me.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W  ℳ 01:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sources that Sitush provided - I think his source D provides particularly strong evidence for the "shudra" label, albeit only for the Khaire Kunbi. It is a modern reference work written by academics who seem perfectly respectable to my untrained eye, the passage is specifically about the Khaire Kunbi and not a passing mention, and it is unambiguously stated that "The Khaire believe in the varna system and belong to the shudra varna." There doesn't seem to be any room for ambiguity to me. About Sitush's idea of an RfC - I agree that an RfC on the specific content issue at Talk:Kunbi would be a good idea, and that it would be a good way to get outside input on the page content. Also, Sitush, I see that you are concerned about MangoWong's behaviour. Have you considered opening an RfC/U? RfC/U is a non-binding process, and will provide a good venue for everyone to air out their views, and to get wider community input on the situation. Before you think about filing one, though, you should read up on what it entails, and check that the minimum requirements have been met. Let me know what you think. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 08:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oddly, I have been reading up on the RfC process in the last hour or so, and looking at some examples. I am honestly uncertain that the minimum requirements would be met in this instance, so some other venue may be required. I am not even certain that the current situation passes the "two users" test, since it seems to be just myself & MW this time round; and while we are at DRN it could be seen as forum shopping to instigate RfCs. I might need to seek some advice about whether RfC is an acceptable venue. In the long run, I am one of those who can visualise that all Indian caste/community articles are likely to require an ArbCom decision but we are some way off that point at present. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Judging from the recent ANI thread, I don't think you would have a problem finding another user to support an RfC/U. I count three or four other users contributing to that thread who would likely put their name down. With there already being multiple AN and ANI threads, having a specific venue to air concerns sounds like a logical step to me. By all means ask for input from others before filing one though - I personally have never been involved in an RfC/U, after all. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had rejected that source because of the point which you have already noted. It would have been a misrepresentation of the source to say that it is about the whole of Kunbi, or to extend it outside Maharashtra.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 10:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a non-argument, and you know it from past discussions. Just as the Balfour quote referred to "Central India" rather than everywhere, so also could a mention of this source, eg: "The Khaire Kunbi of Maharashtra regard themselves as being of shudra rank in the varna system; elsewhere, ..." Something like that, with whatever the correct tense is and, if you are really insistent, an inline attribution to the name of the person making that statement. - Sitush (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough, and I agree that the statement can't be extended to all Kunbis purely based on that paragraph. Would you be willing to simply limit the claim to Khaire Kunbis rather than all Kunbis? That would appear to be a good compromise between your claim of inadequate sourcing and Sitush's desire to keep relevant information about varna in the article. — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 11:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no quibble with that.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good, thank you. Now we need to sort out the rest and contrast with other claims. Zuggernaut has pointed out on the article talk page that X claim to be kshatriya, for example, although obviously this is moot since lots of communities claim all sorts of things which are not accepted by wider society, so the phrasing of it needs to be done carefully. I would be grateful if you could actually be more specific regarding your critique of the listed examples above because clearly the sweeping OR/SYNTH etc rationale does not cover them all, as you seem now to acknowledge. If any progress is to be made then we need to move away from generalisations, evasions and procrastination. It would save everyone a lot of time. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

With regard to my item A in the list, written by R J Barendse. You will find references to shudra status of various Kunbi groups on pages 98, 429, 644 and 914, in parts of which he is specifically discussing the caste system prevalent at the time. He even notes that the Kunbis of Goa were Christian, and cites an interesting piece by Dirks on p 644 which pretty much mirrors concerns mentioned in the recent WT:IN thread. Given that one of our concerns has been the fluidity of the system & the extent to which the Brits stamped their mark on it, it is useful for our own purposes as contributors to know that at least these groups were shudra as far back as the 1700s when the Dutch VOC ruled the roost rather than the British. What is your objection to this source? - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have just read the comment here and guess that is also your objection. Am I right? Do you really think that to be the case? Even though you failed to persuade people the last time you used this argument at DRN? - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About this DRN thread - I'm afraid we can't discuss all the issues related to the article here, due to a lack of space. As you seem to have reached an initial compromise about the mention of "shudra" in the etymology section, I think it would be appropriate to move the discussion back to the talk page. If you are both willing to keep discussion civil, based on Wikipedia policy, and you are both willing to compromise, then I think it is perfectly possible to work out the details in talk. Also, I think it would be helpful to wait until the article is in a more stable state before attempting any further forms of dispute resolution. When articles are being rapidly developed dispute resolution is a lot less effective. How about this as a temporary solution: we take the discussion back to the talk page, I keep an eye on the article while it is being expanded, and if there are any further disputes I can give advice on the talk page or on my user talk. Does that sound reasonable to you both? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. My original point was to get some sort of outside input, although it was intended to be RSN. I appreciate what you have done so far. An RfC/U or similar is likely anway, but it will take time to put together and is of no particular relevance to any one article. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unsure if Khaire Kunbi would require a mention in the etymology section. I would have preferred to discuss things here, because folks seem to ABF less than usual on noticeboards. But there is only so much that can/should be discussed here, so taking this back to article talk seems sensible.<font color="red" face="Lucida Calligraphy">M <font color="green" face="Lucida Calligraphy">W ℳ 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)