The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Jugdev#Manual of Style ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Narsil ( talk · contribs)
• Jugdev ( talk · contribs)
• Rui_Gabriel_Correia ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Jugdev has beenmaking edits to Big data that a couple of editors feel are non-encyclopedic in tone. We've tried to discuss this with them, but they just respond by saying "thank you, it looks to me like my changes meet the guidelines" and reverting our edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User:Rui_Gabriel_Correia opened a discussion on Talk:Big data prior to reverting the changes; Jugdev did not reply there, but just reverted Gabriel's fix. Gabriel then opened a discussion on Jugdev's talk page (linked above), which I joined in on. We have both tried (I hope!) to politely and helpfully point out the issues with Jugdev's edits, but Jugdev simply says they think their changes are fine and in keeping with WP policy, and re-reverts our changes. ( sample)

How do you think we can help?

I hope that a third editor saying the changes aren't in WP style will be enough to convince JugDev to stop editing the page. Failing that, if the third person reverts the changes and Jugdev re-reverts, that may be enough to justify administrative action (though I hope that won't be necessary).

Summary of dispute by Jugdev

Summary of dispute by Rui_Gabriel_Correia

User talk:Jugdev#Manual of Style discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ahmad Sanjar ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HistoryofIran ( talk · contribs)
• Qara xan ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The problem started like this: I expanded the Ahmad Sanjar article a bit by adding some information - some of it stated that he was the longest reigning Muslim ruler until the Mongol invasions (the information was sourced). However, Qara xan then suddenly changed the sourced information by writing that Al-Mustansir Billah was the longest reigning ruler. But that is impossible, since according to this source [2], Sanjar ruled from 1097 until 1157/8 (which i added in the article but Qara xan removed it for no reason). Al-Mustansir Billah ruled from 1036 to 1094. Now, let's do some simple math; That means that Sanjar ruled in 60/1 years, while Al-Mustansir Billah ruled only in 58 years.

However, this guy simply won't accept such a simple fact and keeps denying the truth/simple fact and thinks that Britannica is a reliable source. Even if he added a reliable source, it would make no difference since it is clearly clear that Ahmad Sanjar ruled longer if we do some simple math.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, but what can i do when he denies such a simple fact and keeps reverting me?

How do you think we can help?

By telling him that what he is doing is wrong (read the everything i have written then you will understand what i mean), since he ignores what i say, so i think it would be good if someone else also did that, since it seems that no baths an eye on the edits he have made and the things he have said lately.

Summary of dispute by Qara xan

Talk:Ahmad Sanjar discussion

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you for notifying me about that :). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Far-right politics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Redflorist ( talk · contribs)
• The_Four_Deuces ( talk · contribs)
• Alumnum ( talk · contribs)
• Article_editor ( talk · contribs)
• Bryonmorrigan ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user by the name of The Four Deuces has constantly reverted edits by multiple users that remove connections between "Far-right" and nazism/genocide. I have brought the issue up in the talk page (As have many others), but the same person has been reverting the edits. Clearly, when most people think of "far-right", they think of people like Rush Limbaugh or Ted Cruz. Whether you like them or the idea of "Far-right", I'm sure you agree that its not connected to nazism or genocide. If one checks the "far-left" page on Wikipedia, there aren't any connections with Communism or genocide, because that would constitute a different section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posting a request for page protection.

How do you think we can help?

Think of the topic in an unbiased manner, and realize that far-right isn't synonymous with genocide, but more with a stronger right-wing.

Summary of dispute by The_Four_Deuces

DRN removed sourced material because he disagreed with it and has presented his personal definition of far right but provided no sources. His position is inconsistent with content policies for reliable sources and no original research.

Indeed a number of editors subscribe to a fringe view that the nazis were far left, and the discussion comes up periodically in this article and many others.

TFD ( talk) 15:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alumnum

Summary of dispute by Article_editor

Summary of dispute by Bryonmorrigan

Frankly, this is absurd, and certainly unworthy of the DRN, especially when he just started talking about it on the talk page. RedFlorist is upset that all of the RS goes against his personal, un-cited, opinions, and TFD is 100% correct. (And frankly, TFD and I rarely find ourselves in agreement, so that's saying something.) "Far Right" has a specific scholarly definition, just as does "Radical Right". For example, my personal opinion is that "Radical Right" is an oxymoron, but that opinion is of no consequence on WP, because the term has an established scholarly definition, backed up by sufficient RS. I expect that we'll see RedFlorist posting some quotations from Goldberg and Hayek before this is over, as this has all the hallmarks of a Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck conspiracy rage-edit. -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd Note by Redflorist

I have come to agreement with The Four Deuces and Bryonmorrigan in that far-right does encompass the material in question, as that is the definition one would find of it online. Although I do not agree with the content, it is in line with WP standards and therefore should remain. I'll leave this dispute up to be archived, or just removed by a moderator or volunteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redflorist ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Far-right politics discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding .27International Co-Production.27 Issue ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Twobells ( talk · contribs)
• Drmargi ( talk · contribs)
• Drovethrughosts ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Battlestar Galactica 2004 was a Anglo-American co-production as reflected by the numerous legitimate citations, editors have employed increasingly desperate measures to prevent the article reflecting that. They have employed Original Research, disputed straight forward citations and after extensive discussion refuse to be guided to neutrality and revert any edit that includes citations confirming the show was a UK-US international production. One editor has then taken upon themselves to follow my edits around wikipedia onto another Anglo-American TV co-production and started reverting long-standing consensual articles there also.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Everything, talk history discussion, users page discussion and 3rd party discussion including admin. I agreed with admin to come to DR to resolve this nasty situation before it becomes even worse. I admit to stupidly losing my temper and committed along with other editors 3RR at one point, luckily admin agreed I was working towards article neutrality rather than being NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that DRN moderators can review the evidence and determine a solution as discussion is getting nowhere, I wish the article to reflect the UK's contribution as reflected by the citations, not NOR and that's it. Not a lot seemingly but one impossible to resolve without moderation it seems. I would also like to get a policy ruling at some point on international co productions and how they are presented on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by DrMargi

Summary of dispute by Drovethrughosts

Your intention of what exactly you want in the article is still very unclear, which makes this difficult to resolve. When you added the co-production content to the article, I did not disagree, I simply tweaked it for the better ( [3] [4]). You talk about NPOV, but you continually tried to push Sky1 and the UK's involvement as if it were more than the main series producer, Universal Television, by always placing their names first, giving the impression of more importance, which is false ( [5] [6]). As long as you're fine with this version of the article (which mentions the co-production, but in factual manner), we should be good. Other notes: the UK is not country of origin with the U.S. (though I'm still uncertain if you're still fighting for this), because the UK or Sky1 holds no copyright to this series in any way–the copyright holder to BSG is Universal, which I've said several times to you, but you never acknowledge this piece of information in the previous discussions. As for the lead, the only way for it to read "is a co-production television series" (or whatever wording you want) would be if the Sky1's involvement was for the entire series run, but it wasn't (it was one season out of four). Anything else would be giving more credit where it isn't due. On a personal note, I'm going on vacation for a week in two days, so I don't plan on any further involvement with this. I've said everything I've had to say on subject, all my comments can be read at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#US/UK co-production revisited and Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Notice Of Dispute Resolution Regarding 'International Co-Production' Issue. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say consensuses has been reached just yet, because I am not in favor of it saying co-production in very first sentence. The series is of American origin, thus that's how it should be described. It can be in a separate sentence like I how I had originally, which would read something like, "The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season". The UK is listed in the infobox under "first show in" and Sky1 could be added as a producer with the seasons it produced in parentheses; however, the UK does belong in country of origin. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Twobells

I must say that you Drovethrughosts have been the more reasonable editor and that it is my belief we can work together. Actually what I want is simple and always has been, the attempted sophistry has never come from my side, essentially it is extremely straight forward, that like all other wiki co-production tv shows the info-box and lede reflect the contribution, that's it, nothing confusing about that and never has been. The issue isn't about copyright, the issue is about international co productions, in that production companies produce a tv show together as reflected by the citations and the info-box which is standard wiki practice on all international co-production TV shows. I have never wanted to push one network over another, all I've ever wanted is the article to reflect the citations, that BSG 2004 originally was a Anglo-American co production. Yes, the lede should read 'co-production' not mash-up country abbreviations like 'UK-US' and have UK, US in the info-box (that is purely alphabetical not pov!) However, I am more than happy for the info box to read 'US' first if thats the issue? Twobells ( talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• note, it looks like consensus has been reached with one editor at this very late stage, it is my hope that Drmargi can agree, resolving the issue. Twobells ( talk) 16:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production discussion

Coordinator's comments: Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Please refrain from discussing the case until such time as if and when a volunteer chooses to accept the case and opens it for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Volunteer's comments

Hello, I'm pcfan500. I accept this case. pcfan500 talk| my contribs 10:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the evidence, I think that maybe User:Twobells's addition of the fact that the show was cancelled should be referenced with a reliable source. Don't re-add it until you have a reliable resource. References are required on Wikipedia. pcfan500 talk| my contribs 10:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that any POV pushing occurred, just some unsourced edits. I agree with Twobell's idea of putting the TV studios in alphabetical order (this improves the flow).

Suggestions

• Twobells, you keep saying that the show was cancelled. Please give a source. Don't re do the edit. Just reply with the source and I will tell you if it's fine.
• It doesn't matter with putting whichever TV names first. It does not really give an impression of importance or violate NPOV.
• Drmargi, you haven't given a summary of the dispute; please do so. Thanks.
• Please reply here with suggestions or what you think about these. Remember that dispute resolution is about compromise. pcfan500 talk| my contribs 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The show being cancelled or ending is not a problem, I have no idea where that idea came from or how you viewed that as an issue, as it was never mentioned here. Production companies are usually listed per credit order, like everyone else in the infobox (cast, producers, etc.); thus should be consistent. And yes, being listed above another does imply more importance, that's why we list actors per their billing order and not alphabetical. I feel my comprise above if the best way to go, as it adds what Twobells wants, but presents it in the most factual way possible. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, User:Drovethrughosts, yes, we will list them per billing order, as is common with movies. We wont be adding the fact that the show is cancelled unless we have a source ( WP:No original research). Reply back if you agree. And I would like User:Twobells to respond as I haven't heard from this user regarding the possible compromises.

Given the above, I have contacted TransporterMan and requested he review the comments and competence of the volunteer for this case. Pcfan500 is an editor of less than three months' experience, far too soon to be handling a case such as this, which should have been declined. His apparent inability to understand the nature of the issue at hand, much less to see that Twobells has both misstated consensus and has filed this case in an attempt to get around consensus on the article, both of which are sufficient cause to close the case, is extremely troubling. Moreover he appears unaware of the practices regarding discussion of editors v. the subject, and has done nothing to remove Twobells' personal attacks in the filing. Finally, he/she appears to think they can simply issue mandates as to what will be done, not act as a mediator indicates he/she is not competent to handle this case. I will not participate in this discussion under the current conditions, nor will I be bound by any outcome resulting from it. -- Drmargi ( talk) 00:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I will leave this case and I will gain more experience before coming back, OK? pcfan500 talk| my contribs 01:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: I note the volunteer's withdrawal and will seek a new volunteer. Please discontinue all further discussion (except at the article talk page) until if and when a new volunteer takes the case. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) PS: If Drmargi intends to participate here, it would encourage a replacement volunteer to take the case if s/he would make a summary in the space provided above. I did not mean to exclude that by asking for discussion to cease. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by replacement moderator

I will be taking over moderation of this dispute. I have no particular knowledge of this show; it is the job of the participants to inform me about the show and the issues. I have no special authority or power, and cannot resolve the dispute, but have the job of trying to help the participants resolve the dispute. (If you want the moderator to take "your side", dispute resolution does not work that way.) I will insist that participants discuss content and not other contributors, and that participants be civil and concise. Without those preconditions, this case cannot be resolved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have some opening questions. I understand that there is a dispute about whether the show should be listed as US, or as US-UK. Would each participant please state what their opinion is, and why they hold that opinion? It appears that there may be an issue about whether the show was cancelled. Is there an issue? If so, will each participant please state what their position is?

Are there any other issues that require moderated discussion?

Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Twobells

Thanks for your help Robert.

Primary 3rd party, secondary, and tertiary sources all confirm that BSG 2004 was a US-UK co-production, that the country of origin is the US and UK as reflected by the source material, Sky1 co-produced season 1, season 4 and the spin-off 'Razor'. I include the citations here: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

References

I wish the article to read like this:

Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is (I agree with Drovthrughosts re WP:TVLEAD) a military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise. The show was developed by Ronald D. Moore and co-produced by NBC-Universal TV and Sky1 as a re-imagining of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica television series created by Glen A. Larson.

'UK' would be added to the info box after 'US' and Drovethrughosts and I will pen a section on 'Production', laying out the details of the production showing the contribution made by each network as (very unusually) the article has no 'Production' section. Also, while there is a single mention of Sky1 being the first country to broadcast the show (part of the co-production agreement) there is no reference anywhere in the article referring to Sky1 and the networks production contribution. Unfortunately, the disagreement came about when WP:NOR was employed referring to entirely un-sourced 'copyright' and 'Berne Convention' claims suggesting that the show was purely an 'American' production while numerous external sources and other articles exist state the show was an international co-production. Subsequently, in the article only the 'USA' is mentioned as 'country of origin' and any sources disproving that have been reverted. However, standard policy dictates that the 'country of origin' is the country that produces the show, in the case of international co-productions both countries are listed, usually in the info-box and the word 'co-production' is used in the first sentence leaving out either country; however, on some articles either 'Anglo-American' or 'UK-US' are used (the 'UK' comes before the 'S' alphabetically and is not bias) and I have absolutely no issue with 'US' being listed first.
,
Until we have consensus I suggest adding WP:CONLIMITED and POV check to the article and NPOV-section after the word 'American' to ensure article neutrality, hopefully the tags will be removed once the article is improved.

Also, somehow an editor has made the assumption in good faith that there is a question over the show being cancelled, I have no issue with that either way, as far as I know the show came to it's conclusion due to cost ^[1] and was wound up.

Comment on content, not on contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In closing, unfortunately the discussion on the article talk page has moved from achieving consensus to Tendentious Editing. In that 'One who deletes the cited additions of others (See also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) Editors delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first.' There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from an editor before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia: Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information. Twobells ( talk) 16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Drmargi

Some of us are working gobs, and can't hang out on Wikipedia all day. I've just seen this for the first time, and have not been given an opportunity to weigh in, nor will I have time until quite late this evening Pacific time. I find it inappropriate that we're moving on to round two and declaring agreement before I've even had a chance to read, much less respond to what's been posted. I request the opportunity to do so, particularly given the tiny window of time that's passed since the other two editors posted, before any agreement on anything is determined. -- Drmargi ( talk) 22:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement:

There are two related issues:

• The question of the origins of Battlestar Galactica (BSG) for the purposes of referring to the show in narrative.
• The question of the country of origin for purposes of identification in the infobox.

There is long-standing, stable consensus of some years that BSG is an American show produced by Universal Television (now known as NBC Universal) for the USA network (mini-series) and SciFi (SyFy) channel (both owned by NBC) on American television. Its first season included some limited financial participation by the British network Sky1 in exchange for right of first broadcast of the first season of episodes, after which Sky1 had syndication rights, as did Space in Canada and a sizable number of other channels world-wide. The recent attempt to represent the show's five seasons as an international co-production based on Sky1 having made up the difference between the funding Universal is ready to provide and what the producers needed to produce the first season (and only the first season) of the show the way they wanted (I have a source for this but have to find it online) entirely mis-represents the origins of the show. BSG is an American television show whose first season was produced with the participation of Sky1, which can be, and has been, noted in the lede of the article. Its country of origins, as Drovethrughosts has detailed below, is the United States of America. That is noted in the credits of each episode, and the infobox should identify the country of origin as the U.S. and only the U.S. per long-standing consensus. There is no foundation for change, and characterization of the five-season series as an international co-production based on Sky's limited funding of the first season is both inaccurate and misleading, grossly overstating the the short term, limited involvement of Sky1. Identifying the UK as the country of origins (much less use of UK-US on the specious ground of it being in alphabetical order) is wrong. Period.

The effort to make these changes has been presented as adding some sort of equity or balance to the article, and to somehow remove POV editing is absurd. In fact, the opposite is true. The filing editor has attempted this kind of change in at least three other articles, with consensus clearly in opposition each time, and seems to be interested in using these articles to press a specific agenda. BSG is not an Anglo-American show; it is an American show with some short-term, limited term participation of Sky1 which should be entirely addressed in narrative using language indicating show was produced with the participation of or in association with Sky1 (followed by a parenthetic note regarding it being limited to season 1) is acceptable. The proposed language, removing mention of BSG as an American show is not acceptable, nor is any reference to the UK in the infobox.

There is precedent for handling BSG in this way. There are a sizable number of British television programs produced by ITV or the BBC in collaboration with the US network PBS for the Masterpiece anthology series, with WGBH's (the station which produces Masterpiece) Rebecca Eaton listed as an executive producer; see for example Downton Abbey with ITV and The Paradise with the BBC. PBS and Eaton are identified as a producing network and an executive producer in the credits of each season, a far more comprehensive role than that of Sky1 in the production of BSG. In the articles for these shows, each is described as a a British series produced in collaboration with PBS, Eaton is listed as an executive producer in the infobox and the country of origin is the UK. In each of these shows, the involvement of PBS is far more significant and is for the entire run of the series (in her book, Eaton describes the process by which PBS was approached by ITV as a potential co-producer of Downton Abbey), yet the shows are still described as British since the primary production company, Carnival for ITV in the case of Downton, is located in the UK, and is physically responsible for the production. This accurately and proportionally represents the participation of PBS with no POV pushing. In the case of BSG, NBC Universal and David Eik's production company, both incorporated in the U.S. are responsible for the physical production of BSG, and per MOS-TV, BSG is an American show, with a country of origin the U.S. and only the U.S.

We are here because one editor and only one editor wishes to push the POV that any limited participation by a British entity makes the show an international co-production, and the country of origin UK-US, a proposition for which there has been no support by other editors.

The present/past tense is a minor issue, limited to pointy editing. We use literary present tense to refer to shows that have been canceled, an issue that is not disputed, so the MOS resolves that problem.

As a side note: In the run-up to this filing and in the days since, I have been subjected to a number of personal insults, mischaracterization of my motives, and general assumption of bad faith by one participant. I request that the moderator be very clear that the level of abusive editing by this participant is not acceptable here. I will only be party to, and thereby respect the outcomes of this process, if all parties remain civil and refrain from the kind of sweeping bad-faith editing seen in the last several weeks. If that cannot be accomplished, I will contact the two administrators who levied recent blocks and request further such action.

I also wish to reiterate my dismay that the moderator, for whom I otherwise have great respect, moved ahead to what he terms "round two" in a matter of a couple of hours, before I was given an opportunity to participate in this round of comments. As I noted above, which I stopped to do when I was taking a brief break at work, some of us work; I am a professional, and I work long, demanding days with irregular hours (I worked 12 hours today), and that must be respected in this process. I should not be excluded because of the time zone in which I work, and the time demands of my job, but rather should have my status as a volunteer with finite time to respond respected. I request this statement be considered in the notes below, before I make any statement in what he terms "round two". -- Drmargi ( talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First statement by User:Drovethrughosts

That new lead you wrote is fine, however, it should read "is", not "was" per, WP:TVLEAD (which I've linked you to and told you about several times). I'd rather omit "co-production" or US/UK is the opening, as I've said several times: Sky1 only co-produced a single season; if they co-produced the entire series alongside Universal, I'd be 100% fine with it saying that (because it would be factual), but that is not the case with this series. It should be noted what season(s) Sky1 produced in the lead, otherwise, it gives the impression it produced the entire series, which is false and definitely not a neutral POV. The UK is already in the infobox under "first shown in", they are not country of origin because the series did not originate there, it originated in the U.S. and Universal holds the copyright to the series per the end credits and the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under), which literally defines "country of origin" as country of first publication (not to be confused with air date) which is the U.S. (again, per the series end credits). Anything else is OR unless you can provide a source that specifically states otherwise; the sources you provide say nothing of this, so taking away that co-production = country of original is WP:SYNTH. In all the many years I've edited TV series article, I've never seen a TV series article state "is a co-production television series", the country of origin is always used to describe it in the lead. Or, point to a guideline saying otherwise. My preferred version of the lead would basically be what it is now, but just adding a sentence about the production companies, including Sky1's co-production of the first season. And infobox additions would be Sky to the production companies with the season(s) they produced in parenthesis. Can we please just end this headache... Drovethrughosts ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is a response to what Twobells added to his original comment: I'm sorry, but the series end credits themselves and copyright laws are not "unsourced". You place things in quotes like I'm making them up, do you not know what the Berne Convention is? I will supply you with the link yet again: [7]. It's annoying to have to constantly repeat things over and over, but I understand this is for DNR, so here we go. "Country of origin" is defined by the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under, per the series end credit) as "The country of origin shall be considered to be, in the case of works first published in a country of the Union, that country", which is the U.S. as the credits specifically state "Country of first publication: United States of America" and giving sole copyright attribution to Universal. That is as official as you can get and any external sources by some journalist do not trump something such as official as that. Again, it is WP:SYNTH to attribute limited funding as country of origin, because those sources do not specifically state anything regarding that. Drmargi, above, gives a perfect example regarding Downtown Abbey which is produced by Carnival Films in association with Masterpiece Theatre ( PBS), but is of course only listed as British (which I would never argue to be American in any way); because it originates from the UK.

Second statement by replacement moderator

Okay. First, we are in agreement that the lede will refer to the show in the present tense. Second, please be concise. Please break up statements into paragraphs separated by blank lines so that the moderator can tell what is proposed text and what is rationale.

Do not even suggest the addition of tags to the show. The purpose of this dispute resolution is, among other things, to avoid tags.

Would each party please state what their position is about the national production status of the show, and, in a separate paragraph, what their reasoning is?

Is there an issue about cancellation of the show?

Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Twobells

Second statement by User:Drmargi

As noted above, the show is produced by (NBC, Burbank, CA/New York, NY, USA) Universal (Universal City, CA, USA) for the SciFi/SyFy network (US, owned by NBC). First country of publication: United States. Do we have a theme emerging here? Sky1 (British) involvement? Limited funding of season one. That's it. The whole haza-gaza. How, by any measure, does that make BSG an international co-production? PBS/WGBH for Masterpiece puts more and more comprehensive financial and human resources, including an executive producer, into Downton Abbey and is identified as British with a country of origin (first country of publication) as the United Kingdom. Case closed. Over and out.

This international co-production malarkey is POV-pushing and clear-cut pointy editing in service of an agenda by an disruptive editor. Period. Not of it belongs in the article. We can describe Sky's role in the production of season 1 (I want to see a source for the others that is reliable, not some inaccessible British academician's interpretation of what Sky's role was in S4, since the credits don't bear it out), but that's as far as it goes. There's no wiggle room here to serve personal agendas by misrepresenting the nature and/or scope of Sky1's role in the production of BSG. -- Drmargi ( talk) 20:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by User:Drovethrughosts

What do you mean by "tags"?

The opening sentence of the lede would remain the same: Battlestar Galactica (BSG) is an American military science fiction television series, and part of the Battlestar Galactica franchise.

Rationale: "American" because it's the country of origin, and that is how works are described. Not "Anglo-American" or "UK-US" because that is not accurate as the series was not equally produced between the two countries.

A sentence could be added to the lede regarding production companies, saying something like: The series was produced by Universal Television, with Sky1 co-producing the first season. A possible following sentence could state the series debuted in the UK first, which could be clarified because of Sky's co-production deal of the first season (with a citation).

Rationale: Some of this content is missing from the lede, such as the actual series premiere date (it just mentions the miniseries), and all of this info is factual. It mentions it debuted in the UK first in the Broadcast and release section, but never clarifies why it did, which is needed, as anyone would think "why would an American series debut in the UK first?".

More info regarding Sky's co-production is welcome to the article, as it's not mentioned, but needs to remain factual and NPOV (as in, not placing Sky1 in front or above Universal).

Cancellation? I seriously have no idea where pcfann500 got that from. It was never a topic of discussion here or on the talk page. The series ended, maybe the article could have more info about that, but, it's not a topic of discussion regarding this DNR. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by replacement moderator

When I said not to suggest the addition of tags, I meant not to suggest that the article have tags such as the neutrality tag or the cleanup tag attached. An editor had written: Until we have consensus I suggest adding WP:CONLIMITED and POV check to the article and NPOV-section after the word 'American' to ensure article neutrality, hopefully the tags will be removed once the article is improved. The purpose of this discussion is, in part, to have the article be tag-free.

Will any editors who have not suggested what the language about national production in the lede should be please provide their versions of the proposed text? (If you already have proposed your language, that is satisfactory.)

Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Twobells

Third statement by User:Drmargi

Can we please close this? Drovethrughosts and I have no issue with the article as it was before all this started, and Twobells has abandoned this filing. Let's call it done, and move on. -- Drmargi ( talk) 14:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by User:Drovethrughosts

Fourth statement by replacement moderator

I am closing this thread as resolved per agreement between User:Drmargi and User:Drovethrughosts and abandonment by User:Twobells. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Survivor 30 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:108.6.38.122 ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gloss ( talk · contribs)
• Katanin ( talk · contribs)
• 108.6.38.122 ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is an effort to have a consistent format in listing the castaways. One of the names "Jenn" is deliberately abbreviated. When it was corrected, the correct was reverted. An IP argues with Gloss on its own talk page. Both Katinin and Gloss have insisted that the only CBS is allowed and no other source will be accepted. Check some lists on CBS it appear even those are inconsistent. The purpose of this is to reach an agreement as to with format should be used. The preferred version is First "Nickname" Last as opposed to listing only the nicknames.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The IPs attempted to use the full name, and one IP argued with Gloss on his talk page as mentioned above.

How do you think we can help?

It's best to discuss which is the best format and come to a conclusion every can agree with.

Summary of dispute by Gloss

Summary of dispute by Katanin

The precedent for Survivor articles regarding nicknames is that if CBS—the show's broadcaster—lists a castaway as First "Nickname" Last, e.g. Latasha "Tasha" Fox from Survivor: Cagayan, it is listed here as such. However, it is only used when it is done so by CBS, as the article refers to the castaway in the context of the program; all official CBS material lists her as Jenn Brown, not Jennifer "Jenn" Brown. The preferred version is not necessarily First "Nickname" Last, but whatever CBS is using; the main exceptions are when CBS lists a castaway with no nickname and one is developed in-show and then used in confessions, as with James "Rocky" Reid from Survivor: Fiji, but that is not the case here. As CBS is the network that airs Survivor, it is the most official source, and the names provided to CBS by the castaways reflect their preferred name at the time of filming, and establishes a firm precedent that reflects the content of the program. - Katanin ( talk) 02:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 108.6.38.122

Take a look at this IP's talk page. Gloss argued that only one source (CBS) will be accepted. I talked about it and I agree that we should come up with a format that is consistent and everyone can agree with without edit warring. 108.6.38.122 ( talk) 15:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Survivor 30, User talk:108.6.38.122 discussion

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Both Gloss ( talk · contribs) and Katanin ( talk · contribs) have been notified. 108.6.38.122 ( talk) 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Khatumo State#SSC clans ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Middayexpress ( talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Users Middayexpress & Acidsnow are refusing to acknowledge a large clan that reside in the disputed Sool & Sanaag regions of Somalia. They keep on running on circles with very unreliable & parastrian sources. I gave high quality sources that balances the article but they keep on insisting it's not true. The Isaaq clan lives on the western portion of Sanaag region(including the largest and main city Erigavo & third largest city Eeel Afwayne), while the Darood live on the eastern side. But for years they claimed the whole region is "primarily inhabited" by the Darood which is wrong. I ask anyone to mediate between us and examine the given sources. Sanaag is a majority Isaaq and Aynabo district in Sool is also majority Isaaq.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried on the talk page, but they got me blocked over another dispute.

How do you think we can help?

It's my first time to ask for a resolution so I don't know what to expect.

You said you can't force any user to do anything, but I am positive you'll do something.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

Not sure what this is about, actually. There haven't been any edits on the article's talk page for several months, until this ip's out-of-the-blue, largely incoherent rant today. Judging by the ip's remark that "I hope your happy after blocking me" [8], he/she is also apparently a blocked user; likely Reer Woqooyi. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Acisdsnow

Talk:Khatumo State#SSC_clans discussion

Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard @ 86.99.102.81:. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Regards, SPACKlick ( talk) 14:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I did notify both users on their talk pages just after I wrote the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.102.81 ( talk) 15:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middayexpress#Notify

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AcidSnow#Notify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.102.81 ( talk) 15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, didn't spot the typo above in AcidSnow's username and could see no notification. SPACKlick ( talk) 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we proceed to the thread/talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.109.124 ( talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can't or have some sort of a relationship with either of the users, It would be better if we waited 4 another volunteer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.109.124 ( talk) 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a DRN volunteer who is not involved with any of the three stated parties. The large variation in IP addresses on the talk page suggests that it may be the case that other parties exist. Also it seems that Gyrofrog recently took an interest in the clans of Khatumo. I am not opening discussion (at least not at this time until the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to add their own summaries of the dispute). -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, please take into consideration that I am the previous owner of the IP 217.164.179.36 I happened to upgrade my internet connection recently. 86.99.106.236 ( talk) 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

:24 hour closing notice - There has been no activity on this case for four days. One of the three participants User:AcidSnow has not submitted a summary despite being notified 5 days ago. DRN is voluntary and there is no obligation to participate. Furthermore no DRN volunteer has accepted this case. And lastly, the comment cited by MiddayExpress indicates that the filing IP has referred to themselves as a blocked user. So the filing party appears to be a sock of a blocked user. Unless things are cleared up very soon, this case will need to be closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Northern Province, Sri Lanka ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sri Lanka ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User_talk:Obi2canibe additional discussion

Users involved

• Obi2canibe ( talk · contribs)
• 4frans4 ( talk · contribs)
• UMDP ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The lead of Northern Province, Sri Lanka stated that it was known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country and provided a RS. This was removed by 4frans4 without explanation. After a couple reverts I re-inserted the content with several additional RS. In the mean time a discussion has been ongoing on my talk page in which I have explained why the content should be kept but 4frans4 refuses to accept that his removal is against Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on my talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree. A third party editor has tried to reword the content to make it acceptable to 4frans4 but he has reverted this as well.

How do you think we can help?

Confirm the content complies with Wikipedia policies and that 4frans4 is not justified in his removal.

Summary of dispute by 4frans4

He obi2canibe wants to include the phrase that the Northern Province of Sri Lanka is known as the tamil country of Sri Lanka, apparently due to the large number of Tamil demographics presence in the area. Although it may be the case, in an official capacity from the Sri Lankan government or even from a provincial council capacity. The Northern Province isn't named as the Tamil Country. With regards to this Obi2canibe's reason if Northern Province is Tamil Country due to large presence of Tamil People, is Uva Province the country of Sinhalese? Is Eastern Province the country of Muslims. Plus by naming a single province as certain ethnicities' country isn't it the root cause of 3 decade Sri Lankan Civil War? For a tamil separate state? Just because a large number of an ethnicity's presence doesn't justify the cause to name a certain state, region or province as it's country unless it is defined in an official capacity.

 : is Tamil Presence in 
Tamil Nadu justify to call 
Tamil Nadu as Tamil country of India? 
 : is Malayalam Presence in 
Kerala justify to call 
Kerala as Malayalam country of India? 
 : is Assamese presence in 
Assam justify to call 
Assam as Assamese country of India?

I took India as an example due to the close resemblance of this case between India and Sri Lanka. Finally Obi2canibe recognize himself as a Tamil Eelam sympathizer. Tamil Eelam peoples' sole purpose was to create a separate tamil state in Northern Area of Sri Lanka, in which their dream was crushed by the May of 2009. Naming the province as Tamil country also hurt the reconciliation effort being carried out in Sri Lanka. 4keven4 ( talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by UMDP

Obi2canibe has confused things. There are many provinces or areas that are referred as "countries" in Sri Lanka like "Up Country" but there is no such thing as the "Tamil country" in Sri Lanka. Even the sources he posted doesn't explain anything and doesn't give any direct meaning. It looks like they were written in a figurative sense. While the Northern province has a large Tamil majority it is never called as the "Tamil country" officially and even if people call it as the "Tamil country" unofficially there are no reliable sources to prove it . UMDP ( talk) 09:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Province, Sri Lanka discussion

I'm now looking into this matter. I will report back in half an hour or so, once I'm up to speed. Please keep discussion to a minimum in the meantime. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I can see that this has been quite a short back and forth with only little discussion. The dispute seems to involve the claim that there are RS that refer to part of Sri Lanka as "Tamil Country". Whether that place is the same as "Northern Province" and how to feature any of that in the article. I think you could resolve this if we try to keep the animosity to a minimum. To note the discussion of whether a source is official is a sidetrack. Official isn't the standard Reliable is. So if @ Obi2canibe: can post some of the sources would you be willing to discuss if they are reliable and if they refer to the Northern Province @ 4frans4:? SPACKlick ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to mediate @ SPACKlick:. On your first point, yes, the discussion was less than one would normally expect before a DRN is filed but given 4frans4's responses I didn't think we would be able to resolve it between ourselves. Here are some sources you requested:

1. BBC News - "A trip to Sri Lanka's Tamil country. A sudden phone call gave the BBC's Sri Lanka correspondent Charles Haviland rare access to the the war-battered north of the island."
2. The Independent - "We arrived at Colombo airport in the sticky still of night, struggling with the driver to tie a surfboard to the roof of his saloon, before setting off for the north: Tamil country."
3. New York Times - "FOUR years ago this week, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam announced that their struggle for an independent homeland in northern Sri Lanka had “reached its bitter end...Today, great sections of Tamil country are still a scene of devastation."
4. Daily Telegraph - "Immigration Minister Scott Morrison arrived in Sri Lanka yesterday and flew to Tamil country on a military helicopter to meet with the Northern Province governor G.A. Chandrasiri to talk about Australian aid programs."
5. Asia.com: Asia Encounters the Internet (page 184) - "Information out of Jaffna, the heart of Tamil country, and the center of the war zone, and which has no working telephone lines, is passed through word of mouth, ham radio and via the Tamil Tigers' clandestine radio station."
6. Times of India - "Samanth visits an army-built war museum in the former Tiger zone - the heart of Tamil country -- that has signboards only in English and Sinhalese."
7. UNHCR/Documentation Réfugiés - "The source also mentions the town of Vavuniya as an LTTE area of influence. Documentation Réfugiés describes it as the beginning of "Tamil country.""-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned, any author, any painter and any mother could call another man donkey. From an insulting manner to giving praise. But regardless, it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia like this should emphasis it in our article. As I said, If naming Northern Province as Tamil Country is justifiable due to the large presence of Tamil Population, then what about the states in India? Isn't it the true essence of Tamil Eelam? Isn't it the root cause of Sri Lankan Civil War we experienced for 30 years because some messed up psychopath wanted to create a separate tamil state? I'm not sure if @ SPACKlick: gets the real gist of this discussion. This is not about just a name for the province. This so much more larger than adding the phrase tamil country to the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. Please try to see it @ SPACKlick:.

He could add the phrase "Northern Province is known for its large presence of Tamil Population". Thanks I rest my case here. 4keven4 ( talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@ 4frans4:, While any man could call another man "Donkey" and that would not go in the article. If reliable sources refer to him regularly as "Donkey" that would need to be noted. Just as it is with England's Black Country, irrespective of the amount of coal mining there, it is commonly referred as such.

Your suggestion that the page could note that the area contains a large Tamil population is a sidetrack because the page already says that and it isn't relevant to whether the area gets referred to as "Tamil Country". . The sole question here is whether "Reliable Sources" refer to "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country". I would like you to come back and discuss what the sources say.

@ Obi2canibe:, on the sources specifically I've changed your bullets to numbers for ease of future reference. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Northern Province is not called the "Tamil Country" but the North and East are sometimes called Tamil Areas of Sri Lanka. I wonder how the authors of the articles got the word "Tamil country". It seems they didn't literally mean it and they kind of compared the North to Tamil Nadu which is the Tamil Country of India and called the Northern Province the "Tamil country of Sri Lanka". UMDP ( talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ UMDP: Stating your conclusion as fact does not help build a consensus or an encyclopedia. If you wish to get involved in this dispute please refer to the sources provided or bring new sources to the table. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ SPACKlick: I was doing my research but I don't think finding sources that explain what authors meant by the "Tamil country" is possible. The Closest thing to a "Tamil country" that covers the Northern province is Tamilakam which not only means "Tamil Country" but includes the North and that is the only answer that has sources UMDP ( talk) 17:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ UMDP: If you are joining in the dispute it is worth you adding a short summary of your position to the section added above. I don't think understanding "Why" people call it tamil country is a relevant discussion at this point, if at all, because the question currently is "Whether" people refer to the "Northern Province" as "Tamil Country" in a sufficient Weight of Reliable Sources. Until the answer to that question is agreed the discussion cannot progress. SPACKlick ( talk) 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If English isn't your first language it is quite understandable that you would believe that the term "country" only means an independent sovereign state. In fact it has other meanings as both country (a country may be..a geographic region associated with sets of...differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics) and country (a set region of land having particular human occupation or agreed limits, especially inhabited by members of the same race, language speakers etc., or associated with a given person, occupation, species etc) make clear. So it may mean a geographic region associated with a particular people/language/race (e.g Basque Country), occupation (e.g. cowboy country), species (e.g. cattle country) or even a region of a sovereign state (e.g. west country). In the case of "Tamil country" it is the first of these i.e. a region associated with a particular people/language/race. This is what the authors of the sources given above meant by using the term "Tamil country", they were not implying that it is, or was ever, an independent sovereign state.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the important things to consider in this manner is how controversial this tag "Tamil Country" is, which in turn refers to as Tamil Eelam.

With regards to his source articles every single one of those articles has the face of either tabloid, gossip or tourism value. None has any official news value and none of those articles are backed by the Sri Lankan government officials or even the people of Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, calling the northern province as Tamil country is almost as Taboo. Since there are Americans involved in this discussion let me put it this way. Just because there are many Hispanics and Spanish language being spoken in New Mexico, is it suitable to call the state of New Mexico as the Mexican country of USA. Just because the state of Mississippi has a large proportion African Americans, does it make sense to add the phrase, Mississippi is also known as the Black Country in USA. Please try to see it that way. Tourists, Tamil Eelam sympathizers may call the Northern Province as Tamil Country. But it doesn't alone justify to add the phrase "Northern Province is known as Tamil Country" 4keven4 ( talk) 01:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Still the Upper country (or Up country, locally known as Uddarata) word uses in modern Sri Lanka. It does not mean that Upper country is a sovereign state. But it (like Rajarata) comes from historical region/kingdom. Likewise, Northern province has historical link as Tamil country too. Also, Unofficial differential can be heard by the words "uddarata peolple" still in Sri Lanka. Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka locally known by Up country Tamils, and it does not mean that they are belonging to difference country. Those who involve in the discussion should stay calm and speak from the reliable facts. Calling "Tamil Eelam sympathizer" seems to divert the discussion or attack the user and this logic can back fire as "Sinhalese sympathizer". It does not bring solution, but dragging further.-- Anton ^Talk 03:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ 4frans4: please avoid commenting on the motivations of other contributors and focus on their contributions. Whether or not it is taboo to call northern province Tamil Country can be noted in the article but if it is indeed often referred to as tamil country, the article should reflect that. Your counter examples from the USA don't quite work because it's not common to call them that, if several sources referred to new mexico, or one county of it, as hispanic country then the new mexico article should reflect that. Your comments on the sources themselves were.

• The pieces were tabloid, Gossip or Journalism
• None of them were made by Sri Lankan Officials
• None of them were written by Sri Lankans

The first of these may speak to the reliability of the source but it could go either way. On the one hand it might make them less editorialy reliable and on the other it does mean they have little political motivation to use a term advocating a specific point of view. The fact that these are not official sources from the government doesn't make a difference but if they are all outside sources it may be worth noting in the article that it is known as Tamil Country only outside Sri Lanka if you can find a source to support that claim.

@ Obi2canibe: Do you have any response to the above comment from Keven? SPACKlick ( talk) 10:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ AntanO:

Yes in Sri Lankan rural society and in feudalist society up country sinhalese were sometimes referred to as Udarata Sinhalese. Hence up country sinhalese. But in modern sinhalese society we do not refer to them as Udarata sinhalese anymore unless by an uneducated, bigoted conservative person. As you said Northern Province has never been recognised as Tamil Country in a historical context. see [ [9]] Just so you may not know, did you know in ancient sinhalese, sinhala people used the word "Demala" (Tamil Person) to refer to enemies, someone who is hostile, someone who is an adversory. Why? well because almost all the invaders to Sri Lanka during that time are Tamil Chola Kings. Well even in ancient Khmer it was the same Now should we mention it in an article somewhere in Wikipedia? Well no, because it taboo. :@ SPACKlick: And no, Northern Province doesn't refer to as Tamil Country outside of Sri Lanka unless of course a person who is referring to it as such have no knowledge of Sri Lanka and its People. Like I said, if I could roam the internet I'm pretty sure I may be able to find reasonable sources that refer to Tamil Nadu as Tamil Country and Malaysia as Malay Country. It would be ridiculous now wouldn't it? 4keven4 ( talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ 4frans4: To your question: it wouldn't be ridiculous. If the sources exist showing verifiably that people referred to those places in those ways then it would be warranted to include it on wikipedia.

to note: You have several times mentioned that things are taboo. Wikipedia is not censored. If something is taboo in a social context then that in itself might be noteworthy but it is not a reason not to report on the fact itself. However that discussion is several steps down the road.

You have been asked several times to comment on the content and reliability of the sources rather than give your opinion. You have not done so. You have been asked several times not to comment on editors. You still persist in doing so. Please engage in the discussion at hand.

• Whether those sources provided are reliable as defined in wikipedia policy
• Whether they report that Northern Province is called Tamil Country to any extent (what extent and how to phrase it is a later discussion).

Please do so. SPACKlick ( talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@ SPACKlick: No can seriously describe BBC News, The Independent, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times of India or UNHCR as tabloid, gossip, tourism or unreliable. They are unquestionably WP:RS. The sources provided are news reports or feature stories, they are not editorials/opinion pieces and are therefore reliable for sourcing statements of fact (as outlined in WP:NEWSORG). The remaining source (no.5 ) is a book written by Shyam Tekwani, an academic from Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, part of the United States Department of Defense. This is also a reliable source.

As you have stated Wikipedia does not rely government/official sources but on reliable sources and I have provided numerous reliable sources. Nor we do we only rely on sources from the topic's country. As long as they are reliable we can use sources from any nationality.

4frans4 and UMDP have not brought forward any argument based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines which would prevent inclusion of the content. Instead they are repeating the same arguments: the content is not supported by official sources and that articles for other regions with specific ethnic groups don't mention the term "country" (a variation of WP:OSE).-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of Source Reliability

@ SPACKlick: Regardless of whether it is BBC, New york times or anything, those papers do publish tabloid articles. You can not argue the fact that those sources are reliable to 100%.

@ 4frans4: Firstly 4frans4 please avoid going off topic, discussing opinions or editors. This dispute can only be resolved by discussing the content and wikipedia policy. Your opinion that the BBC article is tabloid doesn't outweigh their longstanding history of editorial rigor for which they are known on Wikipedia as a reliable source and I recommend you read the linked policy to understand why. Your contributions to the discussion so far make me think it might be worth also reading this essay. Your opinion, my opinion and Obi's opinion don't matter it's only what can be verified through reliable sources that matters by the policy of this encyclopedia. Here is how I would approach the sources provided by Obi2canibe.

• I would check the date because referring to an area as Tamil Country during the conflict could be challenged as not showing the area is still referred to that way
• I would check the general reliability of the source, using the reliable sources noticeboard where necessary.
• I would check precisely what claim is made and in context what that claim means.

Below is my analysis of the 7 provided sources.

1)[August 2009] Source is reliable, it's the BBC Travel section. Source makes it clear that there is Tamil Country in Sri Lanka. It implies that the Tamil Country is in the North, but doesn't say where. Does make it clear the "Tamil Country" exists beyond the 2009 end of conflict.
2)[January 2014] Source is reliable, it's the independent Travel section. Makes it clear that there is somewhere referred to as "Tamil Country" in the north of Sri Lanka and that this exists after the 2009 end of the conflict. Indicates Trincomalee is part of Tamil Country.
3)[May 2013] Source is OK not great, it's NY times but the opinion section. Makes it clear that some area of Tamil Country was referred after the 2009 end of conflict no indication of where.
4)[July 2014] Source is reliable, it's the Daily Telegraph News section. Makes it clear that Tamil Country existed as referred after 2009 end of conflict. Implies it is within the area of responsibility of the governor of Northern Province.
5)[Sep 2003] Source is pretty reliable, Published by Routlege. Refers to Jaffna as the heart of Tamil country. It is however discussing prior to the 2009 end of conflict and therefore probably not useful in this context.
6) [Nov 2014] Source is Ok, Times of india book review. Some information comes from the book, some from the reviewer. Refers to an Army Built War museum in the heart of Tamil Country (probably Puthukkudiyiruppu but saying so would be original research).
7) [July 1993] Source is good UN Refugee agency report. Uses a 1992 reference to indicate Vavunis is the beginning of Tamil Country. Probably not relevant due to age.

So we can see that there are reliable sources here which do make it clear that some part of Sri Lanka is referred to as Tamil Country, however none of them make it clear where that is. Source 4 is probably the clearest indicator that it refers to at least a part of the Northern Province. While looking into those sources I also found;

8) [May 2014] IBN live, news section in reasonably reliable source. However, in a conciliatory gesture, Rajapaksa today tweeted that he will ask Wigneswaran, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, also known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country, to join his delegation. Which would seem to support the inclusion of the material.
9) [Jan 2015] Salem News, OK source. In fact Tamil country includes both of Sri Lanka's northern coastlines. So not specific on location but gives a general area.
10)[July 2014] Saturday Paper, don't know this source but it quotes Trevor Grant of the Tamil refugee council as saying There’s land theft, military in schools – all designed to change the face of Tamil country. I would dig further into this source if others proved unreliable.

In 8) we have the first source that equates the two terms directly. So in light of that analysis could you answer the following question.

Do you agree that it can be concluded that at least part of the northern province is verifiably referred to as "Tamil Country" (in reliable sources) per the linked policy?

If you disagree please refer to the policy areas not satisfied by the provided sources. SPACKlick ( talk) 10:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@ SPACKlick: No response from 4frans4 in more than 72 hours. What now?-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There's been no activity from frans anywhere on wiki in that period. If they're still silent after a week then we'll need to consider our options but for now I'm happy to give them a little time. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Still the sources doesn't say anything reliably ,Does it include the eastern province where their is a small Tamil majority? does it include parts of provinces close to the Northern province where tamils live?. Its impossible to go ahead with just one word which is used figuratively UMDP ( talk) 15:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

IBN says clearly that the northern province is known as Tamil Country. What is your policy based reason for objecting to that source or its claims? The more specific you can be the easier it is for other editors to see where you're coming from. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to ignore the Eastern province. The Tamil Areas are usually jointly referred as the North-East. If any part is called a "tamil country" then it should include the Eastern province as well and the "Wigneswaran, the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, also known as Sri Lanka's Tamil country" so . Even the LTTE separatist Tamil ealam map includes the Eastern province so the sources are clearly incomplete. UMDP ( talk) 17:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is where a lot of discussions on wiki derail. Your argument there UMDP was based on your opinion or your reading of information you haven't cited. Wikipedia cannot be based on the opinions of its editors it has to rely on published, reliable sources. Your reference to a map of Tamil controlled areas doesn't necessarily negate the claim but why not link to the map so it can be seen by everyone in the discussion. Link what other sources say about "Tamil country" or opinions of that moniker published in reliable sources. SPACKlick ( talk) 18:34, 2 February 2015‎ (UTC)

the second sources given by Obnicanibe says about North-East not just the North and Trinco is the Capital of the Eastern Province.

The eastern province is included in the "Tamilakam" or the "Tamil Country"

UMDP ( talk) 04:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Obi2canibe: just to draw attention to this post SPACKlick ( talk) 09:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss whether the Eastern Province is known as Tamil country. We are not here to discuss whether the North Eastern Province is/was known as Tamil country. We are not even here to discuss whether the Northern Province is the only region in Sri Lanka (or the world) to be known as Tamil country. We are here to discuss if the Northern Province is known as Tamil country. And to this end numerous reliable sources have been provided to show that it is. 4frans4 and UMDP have not brought forward any argument based on Wikipedia policies/guidelines which would prevent inclusion of the content. They are just filibustering now.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 19:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Obi2canibe: I think that some of what we're not here specifically to discuss is relevant though because only one of your sources specifically says the two are synonymous the rest just indicate that Tamil Country is in the North. Also, with only a few sources mentioning the name we would also have to consider if it merits mention in the lede or in another section of the article. Before getting to the second point, how do you respond to the claim that most of your sources refer to some northern/north-eastern area as Tamil Country that is not synonymous with the Northern Province as evidenced by the mention of Trinco which is outside the Northern Province? SPACKlick ( talk)

@ SPACKlick:Stating that the Northern Province is known as Tamil country does not mean that other parts of Sri Lanka aren't known as Tamil country as well. We are dealing just with Northern Province article. If there are RS stating that the Eastern Province is also known as Tamil country we can add it to that article as well. The two provinces are often grouped together because of their shared culture/history and because between 1988 and 2006 the two provinces were actually merged together as the North Eastern Province.

"Northern Province" is a rather formal term and generally it is known as "the north" in everyday language. It's like calling the Republic of Ireland as Ireland or the Republic of China as Taiwan. This is why most of the sources refer to "the north". I have had a look at the sources and most of them mention locations within the Northern Province. Source 1 mentions Our Lady of Madhu/Menik Farm. Source 3, Source 5 and Source 6 mention Jaffna. Source 7 refers to Vavuniya, a border town, as "the beginning of "Tamil country". Source 4, Source 8 and Source 9 refer directly to "Northern Province". Therefore it is clear that they are referring to the "Northern Province" when they talk of "the north".

Source 2 talks of the north as being Tamil country but then goes onto discuss Trincomalee which isn't in the Northern Province. We should therefore exclude this source from our discussion. Even after this there are still numerous sources to support the inclusion of the content - many more than Wikipedia policy requires.

If you don't think the sources merit inclusion of the content in the lede, I have no objection to it being moved another section, perhaps the end of the History section.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with it being in the history section either and becuase 4frans4 ( talk · contribs) is no longer here the dispute could be ended . UMDP ( talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, we just need SPACKlick's agreement.-- obi2canibe ^{talk contr} 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope that process helped and I'm glad agreement was reached. I'll close this discussion now.

@ 4frans4: If you feel the need to discuss this further, given your current absence from wikipedia, please feel free to bring it up on my talk page. SPACKlick ( talk) 09:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mormography ( talk · contribs)
• ARTEST4ECHO ( talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump ( talk · contribs)
• AsteriskStarSplat ( talk · contribs)
• ChristensenMJ ( talk · contribs)
• Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) - Not on disputed content but on "side discussion on civility"

Dispute overview

The word 'implicate' be changed to 'appear to implicate' or something simpler or something from a secondary source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring notices, talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Change the word implicate entirely with a word from a third party.

Summary of dispute by ARTEST4ECHO

In a nutshell AndyTheGrump, AsteriskStarSplat, ChristensenMJ and myself all feel that the version as of now, is more NPOV then the version Mormography has attempted over and over again to implement. The issue is if a forged document can "implicate" a person of wrong doing. All of us argue that it cannot so the words, "appeared to" (or something similar) is required to maintain NPOV. Mormography has simply refused to accept the consensus that a "forgery cannot implicate, it can only appear to do so, so this more nuanced wording is better" as stated by AsteriskStarSplat. Ironically I came along well after this discussion happened and a consensus was reached to add "appeared to". I attempted to help Mormography find a compromise he might like, which he rejected every attempt. Every edit Mormography has made in effect did the same thing, turned a "forged document" into "proof of misconduct". In the end he turned on me. Mormography as editing my words on the talk page in order to make it look like I agreed with him and intentionally misquoted me in an attempt to get Beeblebrox to lift his blocking, all violations of Talk page guidelines.

I feel that this Dispute Resolution was only opened by Mormography as an attempt to WP:HARASS others. The consensus has been reached by 4 editors to 1 editor. Mormography is simply trying to wear down everyone in order for him to get what he wants, and refuses to listen to anyone. He has been warned over and over by Good Olfactory and Beeblebrox (both Admins) that his behavior has been WP:Uncivil, WP:Personal Attacks, and WP:Edit warring. As a result of Mormography's actions, he was blocked from editing (none of us were) and Gordon B. Hinckley was full protected.

I request that this dispute resolution noticeboard be speedily closed as consensus has already been reached and it was only opened in order to harass others.--- ARTEST4ECHO^{( Talk)} 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AsteriskStarSplat

[Has declined to participate here, as is his/her right as no one is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)]

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

It appears to me that there has quite possibly been something of a breakdown in communication here. While Mormography was earlier insisting contrary to consensus that the article should state that a forgery 'implicated' Joseph Smith in questionable behaviour, his/her latest edit no longer uses the word. [10] Frankly though, given the latest thread on this issue, [11] I'm not entirely sure what Mormography actually wants - with confusingly-worded double negatives intermingled with apparent assertions that contributors (including myself) have reached a consensus regarding wording they have never seen, the threads is a prime example of people talking past each other. I would therefore suggest that rather than discussing imaginary consensus and arguing over who agreed to what, it might be better for all concerned if people just stated what their preferred text was, and on what grounds they supported it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ChristensenMJ

Summary of dispute by Good Olfactory

Summary of dispute by Mormography

It should be noted that Good Ol’factory is not just a side bar on civility, but rather the original editor of this BRD process. The protect state of the article is the new version as originally proposed by him.

Interesting enough, ARTEST4ECHO and I agreed about the wordiness of this proposed edit (semicolon). Another interesting fact is that ARTEST4ECHO has already proposed that the word implicate be removed altogether, but now appears to desire keeping it. So, as far as I can tell ARTEST4ECHO and I agree with the proposed edit's wordiness and the option of replacing the word implicate. ARTEST4ECHO’s summary of dispute is full of false accusations implicating me in bad faith. Preceding sentence is an indication I that I see no problem with the word implicate and believe the supposed problems with the word are more due to the power of suggestion. However, the word is now tainted (or ‘appears’ to be tainted?) and should be changed. The best solution would be to return to the original and then have the word ‘implicate’ replaced by a something chosen by a third party. ARTEST4ECHO previously suggested this, though not necessarily replacing the word by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gordon B._Hinckley discussion

Volunteer notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. I just want to make the following comments.

• All listed parties have been notified.
• This noticeboard does not deal with conduct disputes and will not discuss content here. I'm going to remove one comment made above about a party being blocked and ask that there be no further discussion of content.
• Good Olfactory is probably not a necessary party here, having only dealt with conduct issues at the article talk page. I'm going to go ahead and leave him/her listed, but if he does not participate or does not care to participate it should not prevent this case from moving forward if all or most other parties do participate.

Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note 2: It has been raised that there is a consensus here and that the filing editor is arguing against that consensus. The DRN editor who takes the case will make a consensus evaluation and if a clear consensus does exist then the case will be closed (since there is no real dispute in that situation). If consensus is unclear, then the case will proceed. Just FYI, and others may certainly disagree, my personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference (but then you have to ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it, though there can be good answers to that question). Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing Summary -- I am closing this case for several reasons:

1. Lack of participation -- Only one editor has made a comment besides the filing party.
2. Inactivity - No comments for 4 days
3. Inadequate talk page discussion - There was a lot of chest beating and references to a prior consensus of 2007 but the actual content issue was not adequately discussed.
4. Article is stable -- There have been no edits to the article for more than 10 days and no discussion on the talk page since this case was filed four days ago.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Erigavo#Clans ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Middayexpress ( talk · contribs)
• AcidSnow ( talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user Middayexperss is not sincere on resolving our dispute regarding The regional capital of Sanaag region of Somalia. He keeps injecting his clan in Erigavo based on weak arguments with no backbone despite providing sources on my behalf that proves who are the majority.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussions on the talk pages were not fruitful as he obviously brings nonsense arguments while his friend is cheering for him .

How do you think we can help?

Mediate between us.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

This is the second frivolous post here by this editor in a little over a week. He or she likewise has no idea what my ethnic group or gender is let alone clan, as I have not volunteered any such personal info. As AcidSnow notes below, the ip has also admitted to being a sock. Earlier post by this editor was in part closed for this reason [12]. Middayexpress ( talk) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AcidSnow

I don't plan on participating in this discussion but it should be noted that the IP is just another sock of user Reer Woqooyi. He has admitted to be so as well: "I tried on the talk page, but they got me blocked over another dispute" and I hope your happy after blocking me. It won't help though, am calling a mediator". AcidSnow ( talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Erigavo#Clans discussion

• I'm boldly closing this report PER WP:DENY as it was initiated by a block evading IP. Apologies for any templates or procedures I may have borked in the process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 18:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.