This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'm very tempted to close this as "resolved against inclusion of the disputed material," but will instead merely say that the requesting party has chosen to move on to an RFC after having two involved editors and two neutral editors clearly take the position that the material is inappropriate as being insufficiently sourced and, as such, original research (see the discussion). — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview We are stating that the governor can enact, amend, or repeal laws that are emblematic to his party since his party controls the executive and legislative branch. These statements are referenced, reliable, and verifiable. However, another editor keeps removing the information. We are also providing statistics about the Governor's performance which are also referenced, reliable, and verifiable but the same editor keeps removing the information. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing it on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Warn the user to stop reverting such information as it adheres to WP:NPOV and to WP:VERIFIABLE. Summary of dispute by JmundoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't see a personal dispute here. Severals editors have commented on the issue. More watchful eyes are always welcomed as it involve the addition of negative and poor source material to a BLP article. Jmundo ( talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Alejandro García Padilla discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I take it that the material reverted back into the article here and here is the material in dispute here.
In both these cases, it appears that sources are being analyzed and synthesized to draw conclusions about Padilla which are not expressly set out in the referenced texts. That kind of analysis is not proper for Wikipedia and the assertions in these edits should not be in the article unless they can be supported by a secondary reliable source. Moreover, both of these edits are, as they are used, making direct statements about Padilla, a living person, via primary sources which are government-issued public documents. BLPPRIMARY says, unequivocally, "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." BLPREMOVE says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." In light of what is said in BLPPRIMARY, this material is both poorly sourced and a conjectural interpretation. It should be immediately removed from the article and if there is any dispute about whether or not it is appropriate, it should not be restored until that dispute is resolved at BLPN. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) PS: DRN volunteers AndyTheGrump and Keithbob both frequently work at BLPN and I would invite their comments on the analysis which I made above. — TM 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis. Neither statement is original research. I will reply to both TransporterMan and Andy below. All these statements are stated repeatedly in Puerto Rican news and radio but I'm having a hard time finding a source on the Internet that says that explicitly verbatim in those very same words because the election happened over a year ago. Let me explain to you what "sharing legislative powers means": the Governor does have legislative powers: he signs laws. He shares legislative powers with the Senate and the House: the Senate and House propose laws, passes them, and then the governor signs them into law. In this case, García Padilla shares these powers with the 25th Senate and the 29th House. Both are controlled by his party. How can you not derive that from the sources provided I really do not know. The Constitution was cited where this is explained. So were the election results which show these facts. WP:BLP states explicitly that biographies of living persons must be verifiable, neutral, and avoid original research. This statement is verifiable, neutral, and is not original research. It can be verified by looking at the election results and the Constitution. This statement cannot be removed. The second statement, about García Padilla's power, is about bills that are emblematic to his party. Andy missed that word, so did everybody else. There is a difference between trying to "enact, amend, or repeal" a law, and trying to pass one that is emblematic to your party when your party controls both the legislative and executive branch. This is an obvious fact in this case, but once again, I'm having a hard time finding a source ONLINE for this, even though this is repeated pretty much every week. If the problem is that the references provided do not EXPLICITLY say THAT VERY SAME TEXT then feel free to remove this sentence. I will re-add it once I find a reference somewhere else. However, you need to understand that it is of utmost importance that this is mentioned in the article as Puerto Rico has suffered from shared legislative powers in the past that have created issues in its history (see Aníbal Acevedo Vilá and 2006 Puerto Rico budget crisis. Similarly to what is happening to Obama right now with the Republican House. Now, about the graphs. Nobody is implying anything. These, once again, are FACTS, not observations. The statement says, "this is how the economy has behaved since García Padilla came into power", it does not say, "García Padilla CAUSED this". There is a BIG difference. You are the ones interpreting it as causation when such thing is never mentioned in the caption. For example, I just updated the second chart from the newly published data and guess what? Employment went up during his last month! The article now reflects this. Are we going to remove this as well? These are facts. I don't care if they are negative or positive. They are facts. Period. Here's how you can form that graph:
I'm not making this up. The data is available at http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/15.EAI-2013-10-01.xls Regarding jobs, we have the following:
Once again, I'm not making this up. The data is available at: http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/01.LABOR-2013-10-01.xls If the problem is the caption, then put something like "EAI since García Padilla has been in power" and "Payroll since García Padilla has been in power". Once again, these are facts, which are REFERENCED, verifiable, neutral, and do not constitute original research. We create graphs from statistics published by reliable sources all the time. If the wording is problematic then change the wording, but leave the facts in place. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|
No extensive discussion on the talk page as required by this noticeboard. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions which I make here. For general help, you might want to consider asking a question at the Teahouse. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Firstly, I recognize that this is not a highly trafficked page and hardly very important. The page is about a Spanish political party, UPyD. The dispute stems from the Ideology section of the Infobox and began in 2009. The dispute is over the terms 'Nationalism', 'Spanish nationalism' and 'Anti-nationalism'. Basically, I feel that there is evidence to support labeling UPyD as a Spanish Nationalist party, and have provided a recent editorial by that party's leader to justify this. I should point out that it was me who made the change to the page that triggered this dispute, and that I only did so when I felt that the referenced evidence was overwhelmingly in support of such an edit. 2 anonymous users are continually undoing this edit and I don't want to get into a war with them but I do think that for the integrity of the article, we reflect the true position of a political party, and not just its stated position. I believe that the anon users' opposition to this term is based on their reading of it as inherently pejorative whereas I feel that I'm including it for neutral, factual reasons. I have proposed removing or altering 'Anti-nationalist' to 'Opposed to Catalan and Basque nationalism' but didn't get any response. Instead, a new anon user started editing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to engage anon users in order to resolve this, but received no response. How do you think we can help? We need a clear policy on how to complete the ideology section of the Infobox. Is it right to put verifiable items in that section - Spanish Nationalism in the case of UPyD - or should we stick to the party's self description (which to me runs the risk of turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool)? Thank you for your help. Summary of dispute by 213.254.88.62Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Union, Progress_and_Democracy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP case already under discussion at WP:AN. DRN only deals with disputes about article content, not about user conduct, especially off-wiki (IRC/Email) user conduct. — Guy Macon ( talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have helped this user from IRC, told her what to do what not, and called her pretty/super pretty cracked a joke, Emails on the talk page, and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard I accept full responsibility about my actions, however this about the article, and she is planning to sue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Article merger proposal agreed by everyone, I have told her to make a sandbox, a draft etc.... then edit the article, she can't even sign the article told her how to do it, doesn't want to listen. How do you think we can help? This is about the article not about me, if my actions are to be blamed for , I accept full responsibility, and if the Admins want me to blocked for sometime because of my actions I accept, and I have made formal public apology to her. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Colon cleansing discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Futile for lack of participation, but please see my closing note at the end of the collapsed text. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview In the article West Bank, I tagged the term "international community" as needing clarification (full quotation: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law"). I was reverted twice and so I started a discussion on its talk page. The reason I believe this term requires clarification is it is a vague term and it is not clear who in particular it refers to and I also feel that it implies a consensus which does not exist. The people opposing me seem to be ignoring my arguments as to why I think a little clarification should be added, and are maintaining that because "the phrase is sourced to 4 academic sources" it is not necessary to clarify it. Keep in mind that all I want is for the term to be clarified and I am not disputing the neutrality of the claim. My opposers don't seem to understand that sources are for facts, not for language, and so we do not have to copy them word for word. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried adding a "clarification needed" tag and have tried discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. How do you think we can help? I think it would help to get some more opinions on whether the term "international community" requires further clarification, preferably from people who are not involved with the topics of Israel/Palestine or the Middle East in general. Summary of dispute by Sean.hoylandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DailycareI think this can be resolved quite easily. The sources use the term without difficulty, so we can as well. One way to meet Wikitiki89 halfway would be to provide a wikilink to the international community article in the first instance of the term in this article. Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Frederico1234Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
West Bank discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. With two involved editors not choosing — as is their right — to participate here, this listing is probably futile. It will be closed after 15:00 UTC on 20 Nov unless those editors choose to join in. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
|
As it says in the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot accept disputes that are under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. KiplingKat has filed an ANI case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Drmargi -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The article stated he was 17 at the time he got his first entertainment job, joining a circus in Budapest. In a recent magazine, Armitage stated, in a direct quote, that he was 19 at the time of joining the circus. Many earlier sources had said 17 in noting that event in his background, but had not quoted him. (I suspect my of those sources pulled their information from Wikipdea). I corrected the age, including a citation of the author, title, magazine and issue in question because the article was not hosted on the magazine's website. I also stated in my edit that earlier sources had stated he was 17, but this was a recent quote from him. Drmargi reversed the edit, claiming that it was "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." I pointed out it was not, that I had properly cited the source in question, and showed her a scan of the physical magazine article and put the edit back. She reversed it again, insisting on the Talk page that the edit was not verifiable. When I requested a Third Opinion, Span stepped in, siding with article and citation. Dramgi rejected that as well, I finally said we could post the both ages as conflicting with citations to both sources. She still wanted to dismiss the new information and she wanted to hear more people weigh in to get a "consensus.". Well, I am requesting help. This has been bizarre. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third Opinion. How do you think we can help? Please step in and make a decision that Dramgi will accept (Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been Summary of dispute by DrmargiWhat on earth? By KiplingKat's own assessment, there was consensus on an edit this morning, she made the edit, and now this? We discussed the various options for editing and agreed on a course of action with two possibilities for wording (omit age/add both ages with explanation).
(Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been Summary of dispute by SpanglejPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No dispute from me. The four editors involved pretty much reached consensus about content. Each person's contribution is important. Patience and good collaborative working is key to WP editing. Span ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Richard Armitage (actor) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.
I am now opening this up for discussion. I have I would like to start by asking each of you to posting without any extra comments the exact wording you would use if nobody else was editing the article. I would then ask each of you to reply with "acceptable" or "not acceptable", again without any extra comments. You will have plenty of opportunities to explain why you like or don't like various wordings after I get a count of who wants what. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) "After completing the program at Pattinson College, he joined a circus in Budapest for six weeks to gain his Equity Card. (Armitage has given alternate ages of 17 and 19 in different interviews.)" with proper citation. KiplingKat ( talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not, by its terms, handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. For conduct disputes consider RFC/U, ANI, or ARBCOM. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The user Mojo-chan seems to feel that he did not get a full chance to express himself in a recent discussion concerning a proposed name change for this article. He did have a chance to voice his opinion and did so, however, but although the discussion closed after 10 days (scheduled to close at 7) he felt that it warranted further discussion and opened it again, it was speedily closed. Following this, Mojo-chan has made several statements on the talk page indicating that he has further evidence he wishes to present, but has not presented it, claiming that he wishes to wait until later. People seemed happy to comply with this, but in the last few days Mojo-chan has again posted on the talk page criticising the tone of the previous discussion and requesting that others apologise to him. The consensus on the page is that everyone has been suitably correct and that Mojo-chan needs to either present his evidence or move on. Following this, Mojo-chan has begun to accuse others of showing bad faith and making personal attacks on him, which I feel is rather unconstructive and disruptive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss this with Mojo-chan rationally and calmly, explaining that people will react better to him if he presents his case rather than simply promise 'more later'. I have, since he began accusing others of bad faith, pointed out how he can help move the discussion in a more positive manner, but he has responded by saying that he feels that I am patronising him. I have now taken myself out of the discussion entirely and wish to seek outside resolution for those still involved. How do you think we can help? I think perhaps a friendly word from someone on the outside advising Mojo-chan to back away and relax a little might be helpful. I'm sure he doesn't intend harm, but his action is not helping his intention and I'm starting to feel rather unsympathetic to him. He doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour is the instigating factor in this dispute. Summary of dispute by 24.149.119.20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DragonZeroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mojo-chanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Case Closed discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Stale. Past its 14-day life span at DRN and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider 3O, MEDCOM, or RFC as an alternate source of dispute resolution. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Dear volunteer, the dispute is simple and could be decided on the spot, without digging in the article. Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence? There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement and deleted it . I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported). He does not agree (I suspect that he does not have a RS). He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it. This dispute is a restarting of the previous session which expired and the volunteer could not continue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? It is discussed in the talk page. I have asked at the help desk as well: Help desk How do you think we can help? I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating". Summary of dispute by Pluto2012When I see Ykantor writing "I suspect he has no WP:RS" and knowing the existence of this section several months old and that was endorsed by all the contributors who commented it, I have no idea what to do. This is maybe the 4 or 5th time and/or place where Ykantor wants to re-discuss the issue. Pluto2012 ( talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 1948 Palestine war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
So, the first point is that, yes, Wikipedia editors are expected to write from a balanced point of view and when there is no one clearly-correct (that is, reliably-sourcable) position are expected to include all positions in their writing, supported by reliable sources, including those to which they are personally opposed. The problem then arises that an editor may say, "But there is only one point of view, or only one which can be supported by reliable sources." What then? First, we must assume good faith and refrain from inquiring into the editor's honesty or motives. (It is a well-established principle here, however, that an editor can over the course of time and editing demonstrate that he or she, either generally or in particular topic areas or circumstances, is so dishonest or one-sighted that they no longer deserve that assumption. In those cases, the proper remedy is to seek blocks or bans through ANI or ARBCOM, frequently preceded by a RFC/U. Since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN, I will wholly refrain from commenting or implying whether or not such action is called for in this instance, and express no opinion about it.) Since we must act in good faith and since the model of Wikipedia is collaboration, not competition, the good faith response to an objection that there is only one position is to demonstrate through the citation of reliable sources that there is a second position which must be reflected in the article. There may, of course, then be a dispute over the reliability and weight of those sources, but once that has been resolved, then it ought to be clear whether or not there are one, two, or more positions which must be reflected in the article to achieve NPOV. Where we may be in reference to this dispute is that Pluto is asserting that he has, in fact, done that, that is, has provided reliable sources to demonstrate a second point of view, but that Ykantor has failed or refused to address those sources, or possibly that Ykantor is asserting that those sources are not reliable. Is that, in fact, where we are? Or are we at the point that Pluto and others are no longer willing to assume good faith about Ykantor's honesty or ability to be neutral? If the latter is the case, then let me remind everyone that no one is required to participate in content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. If you do choose to participate, then it is incumbent upon everyone to do so without reservation and to assume good faith, not to do so half-heartedly. Pluto, if you feel that you can no longer assume Ykantor's good faith then I would suggest that you say you do not want to participate here and consider RFC/U and/or ANI. If you do not wish to Participate here, Ykantor may then consider a regular content RFC to try to get his desired edit into the article. If you do wish to participate, Pluto, then do so with the understanding that discussion of Ykantor's good faith, bias, etc., cannot play a part in this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (As a personal matter, after hitting "save" on this edit, I will probably be offline until at least sometime next Monday, so another volunteer may choose to take this up if they care to do so.) — TM
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood me, Ykantor: I was only asking about what others have said about you and what their positions were, going forward, which might affect the viability of this case, and was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with their views. Since, however, you have questioned my neutrality, I fear I must recuse myself from being involved further with this dispute, except perhaps for some purely administrative tasks, and must leave it for another volunteer to take up if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
After extensive discussion, some issues resulted in compromise while others were referred back to the article talk page or to WP:RSN. For a detailed summary see the Final summary and comments at the bottom of this collapsed section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor ( talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC) user:Trahelliven deleted quotes (footnotes). Once he was asked for the reasons, he replied with strange / bizarre reasons. e.g.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to explain myself and replied to his bizarre notes, but during each round he comes with a fresh story. How do you think we can help? by convincing either of us, that he is wrong. Summary of dispute by TrahellivenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ytantor has made several edits to Reports of pressure against the Plan in the last few days. I shall therefore comment on the article as it now stands.
I shall now go through the other quotations.
At least one quotation (8 -Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). has not been reinstated. Can I take it that its deletion has been conceded? Trahelliven ( talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC) On reflection, I shall explain the reason for the deletion of the four (4) quotes.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello User:Ykantor and User:Trahelliven. I have read the case above and examined the relevant sections of the article talk page. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:
Part II
OK, it appears Yanktor and Trahelliven have agreed to "return to the 14 June version". We also note that Trahelliven has specified that this agreement does not preclude further discussion on the article talk page about ways to further refine or amend the sentence(s) so that it most accurately reflects available reliable sources. Is this agreeable to both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: This is not a big deal, but could everyone be careful to avoid putting an edit or post in the midst of another editor's edit or post? It makes the discussion very difficult to follow by the volunteer (and everyone else) and makes his work harder by forcing him to have to go to the history page to make sure he understands what's right. It's fine, of course, to insert a response between two prior complete posts, so long as the new post is properly indented and signed, but it's not okay to do so in the middle of someone else's single posting. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Ykantor, You mentioned at the start of this case that some of your prior case requests had been ignored. I'm beginning to see why:
Summary--OK, within the context of this DR, I am considering the discussion of "edit #1" to be resolved with the agreement it will be returned to the July 14th version (pending consensus of other editors at the talk page) and further changes will be discussed on the talk page amongst all the editors who are active there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Part IIIOK, moving along in our discussion of this edit to the second part, which we will call edit #2.
was supported by these two sources:
Rather than remove valid sources I'd generally think its better to amend the text to more accurately reflect what the sources say. Can we get quotes from these two sources that support the text under discussion here?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pluto2012, and thanks for your detailed analysis of the sources. Is there a way we can amend the sentence so that it more accurately reflects what the most reliable sources say?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III continued (arbitrary break)OK, so we have two suggested sentences:
Would it be a fair compromise to say?:
Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There is something wrong in the English of The Arabs rejected any form of partition. Is the sentence meant to imply that every possible form of partition was put to the Arabs? In that case the sentence should read The Arabs rejected every form of partition. On the other hand the use of any is hypothetical and does not necessarily mean that there were any canvassing of opinions at all. It is just that, if there were, all would be rejected. In that case the sentence should read The Arabs would reject any form of partition. The sentence, as suggested by Ykantor, somehow tries to fit between the two. He should make up his mind which he wants to say. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgetting Abdullah of Jordan, you cannot even say:-
It may be that on 26 November 1947 two Arab friends living in Telaviv were chatting over a cup of coffee and one said to the other, "I like the idea of living in Jewish state.". It would have been logistically impossible to have asked every Arab living in Telaviv on 26 Movember 1947, "Did you meet a friend over coffee and admit that you would like living in a Jewish state?" Trahelliven ( talk) 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Pluto2012. I for myself do not hold the view that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition. I do hold the view, however, that if the Jews had been offered nothing more than a square centimetre of Telaviv Beach, the Arab leadership would possibly have accepted such a partition. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Part III continued (second arbitrary break)OK, so the proposals on the table are:
Does someone want to propose a third version that they feel would be a compromise between the two that all three parties could agree on? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two distinct concepts here:-
Hence we may use either the combined sentence or any of the splits, as appropriate.(and each of the splits is rather concised). Ykantor ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not foresee any special reason to use a split (rather than the whole sentence) other than concising it. Ykantor ( talk) 05:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
To summarize........ the sentence below has been agreed upon by both Ykantor and Trahelliven:
Since Trahellivien has rejected a proposal to split the sentence shall we stick with what has been agreed upon?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC) I think (and hope) that a slightly shorted sentence is acceptable:"the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) rejected the U.N partition plan and said that they would reject any other plan of partition. Ykantor ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to Keithbob. My final word is that the new sentence sums up the section. Every aspect of the sentence is covered by references later on. Repeating those references would be repetitive. Trahelliven ( talk) 05:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for sticking my oar in late on in the day, but ... I suspect that a number of things may be being confused: what a specific group of Arab leaders said specifically in response to the outcome of the vote on the Partition resolution, what the public position of Arab leaders on the solution to the Palestine problem was in general, what the private position of various leaders was. In response to the vote, a group of Arab leaders rejected the Partition Plan. In the lead up to the vote, the public position of Arab leaders and representatives was that Palestine shouldn't be partitioned; it's unnecessary to say that "any form" of partition, which presumably refers to the infinite number of ways that a line could be drawn on a map of Palestine, was rejected, it was just partition that was rejected - the Arab position was that, in line with the 1939 White Paper proposals, Palestine should become independent as a unitary state. In private, King Abdullah was in favour of partition (and colluded with the Zionists) and a number of Arab politicians were willing to negotiate. ← ZScarpia 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Part IVThe next item up for discussion is from the same edit by Trahelliven which we have been discussing here in which they removed the citation (ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/) that supported the text:
Ykantor can you quote from the cited source (the UN document that appears inside the book by Lapidot on page 52) as to which part supports the text above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point to wait on this discussion till the other is finished. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor:Perhaps you might go to page 49 of Rut Lapidot's book and read the description of the document of which page 52 is part; then tell me why the Memorandum from the Israeli delegation is a Reliable Source. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The Memorandum is certainly a primary document. It is published in the Selected Documents, purely as a collection of primary source documents on the topic. To my mind being so published does not alter its status or value. Its contents is quoted, however, as if they were in a book written by Rut Lapidot and Moshe Hirsch and they are their considered opinion on the reasons for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. It is nothing of the sort. It is a document prepared on behalf of the Israeli government, no doubt attempting to persuade the UNGA to take certain actions. At best its evidentiary value is limited to showing that the Jews blamed the Arabs for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. I am sure that better sources can be found to show that. At the very least, the insertion of the quotation should have made it clear that it was an extract from an Israeli government document. The quotation should not be included in the article. Trahelliven ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
SUMMARY: I'm concluding part IV of this case and referring any further dispute or discussion about this source to WP:RSN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Final Discussion of Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013I should add that I attempted to delete four (4) quotes at 19:36, 22 October 2013. However I did not do it properly. They were rescued on 19:53, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, and 20:04, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, but as footnotes. I was not aware of this until today. They should be added to the disputed quotes. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob
Perhaps we might talk about the quotes, where I have commented: then we can move to the others. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, thank you for clarifying that the current discussion concerns the sameSept 29, 2013 edit by Trahelliven that we have been discussing previously. We have already discussed the four sources that were removed. What I see left in that edit for discussion is:
Keithbob: I am lost on which matters you intend to continue in the discussion. (Lapidot is going to another place.) The others listed above,1, 4, 5, 6, 7,: 5, 7 - are they all now to be discussed? Trahelliven ( talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The embedded link they provided goes to a talk page thread that objects to this . So what we are doing is going through all of the changes contained in that edit. The last two items to be discussed in that edit are the two items I've listed above. Let's discuss and resolve those and then we can make a decision about the other quotes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 1Trahelliven, your edit removed this content and corresponding citations which you have specified in your list in the prior section as #4 and #5:
Can you explain your reason for this removal? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob
Ykantor:
Ykantor: Please remind me again. Who are Azzam and Kirkbride? Trahelliven ( talk) 09:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor:thank you for the reference to the relevant rule.
It is quite clear that Ykantor and I differ on how Wikipedia works or should work. Until someone, at the very least, gives me the identity of these leaders so that we can start by saying, X and Y threatened, I will not agree to the inclusion of the quotation. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(from Morris 2008)
Summary: This appears to be a complicated issue involving many sources and it does not appear likely that it will be resolved in the near term. Trahelliven has indicated that he/she cannot find any ground for compromise on this point so I do not see the purpose for any further discussion here at DRN. I am therefore referring the issue back to the article talk page where it can be discussed at length amongst all the editors who are active on the article. Participants may feel free to cut and paste things they have quoted or referenced here, in this discussion, and forward them to the new talk page discussion as needed rather than reassembling the same information. Now we will move on to the final thread of this case after which I will close this case, which has been open for more than three weeks already and comprises more than 10,000 words of discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 2This is the final thread and issue in this DRN. It concerns the last change that Trahelliven made in this edit, which is the subject of this case. Trahelliven removed this citation which contained an extensive quote taken from the source (see below):
Trahelliven can you please tell us what is/was your objection to this source and its embedded quote? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to find a reference for the report of the April 1948 of the United Nations Palestine Commission and for the address in the Trusteeship Council by the Representative of Iraq, but without success. Is this an improvement on the presentation of the Lapidoth quotation? Trahelliven ( talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The source itself was written by Israeli government officials and is therefore hardly RS. The two embedded quotes stand or fall with the source. The source falls; therefore the two embedded quotes fall with it. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment
Final summary and closing commentsThis was a long case with active discussion occurring since October 29th. I believe that all parties participated in good faith and that significant progress was made. The two named parties in the case, Ykantor and Trahelliven, found common ground on some issues and other issues were referred to what I felt were, more appropriate forums.
As in any dispute it is often the case some or all parties may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. Please keep in mind that DRN "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues" and that its participants are volunteers attempting to find common ground and compromise in content disputes in a dedicated setting. I felt that all editors participated in good faith and I commend them for their willingness to discuss and find compromise wherever possible. There were some initial problems with editors making derogatory comments about other editors however, after some reminders this became less. I recommend that in future dispute resolution processes, whether here or at other venues, that all parties behave civilly and avoid filing cases simultaneously in other venues, whether the are related to content or behavior, as this can poison good faith discussions and create an unsettled and unproductive atmosphere. I also recommend that, moving forward, the parties take advantage of other dispute resolution forums such as WP:RSN, WP:RfC and WP:Mediation. Thank you and good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I'm very tempted to close this as "resolved against inclusion of the disputed material," but will instead merely say that the requesting party has chosen to move on to an RFC after having two involved editors and two neutral editors clearly take the position that the material is inappropriate as being insufficiently sourced and, as such, original research (see the discussion). — TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview We are stating that the governor can enact, amend, or repeal laws that are emblematic to his party since his party controls the executive and legislative branch. These statements are referenced, reliable, and verifiable. However, another editor keeps removing the information. We are also providing statistics about the Governor's performance which are also referenced, reliable, and verifiable but the same editor keeps removing the information. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing it on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Warn the user to stop reverting such information as it adheres to WP:NPOV and to WP:VERIFIABLE. Summary of dispute by JmundoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't see a personal dispute here. Severals editors have commented on the issue. More watchful eyes are always welcomed as it involve the addition of negative and poor source material to a BLP article. Jmundo ( talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Alejandro García Padilla discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I take it that the material reverted back into the article here and here is the material in dispute here.
In both these cases, it appears that sources are being analyzed and synthesized to draw conclusions about Padilla which are not expressly set out in the referenced texts. That kind of analysis is not proper for Wikipedia and the assertions in these edits should not be in the article unless they can be supported by a secondary reliable source. Moreover, both of these edits are, as they are used, making direct statements about Padilla, a living person, via primary sources which are government-issued public documents. BLPPRIMARY says, unequivocally, "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." BLPREMOVE says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." In light of what is said in BLPPRIMARY, this material is both poorly sourced and a conjectural interpretation. It should be immediately removed from the article and if there is any dispute about whether or not it is appropriate, it should not be restored until that dispute is resolved at BLPN. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) PS: DRN volunteers AndyTheGrump and Keithbob both frequently work at BLPN and I would invite their comments on the analysis which I made above. — TM 19:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your analysis. Neither statement is original research. I will reply to both TransporterMan and Andy below. All these statements are stated repeatedly in Puerto Rican news and radio but I'm having a hard time finding a source on the Internet that says that explicitly verbatim in those very same words because the election happened over a year ago. Let me explain to you what "sharing legislative powers means": the Governor does have legislative powers: he signs laws. He shares legislative powers with the Senate and the House: the Senate and House propose laws, passes them, and then the governor signs them into law. In this case, García Padilla shares these powers with the 25th Senate and the 29th House. Both are controlled by his party. How can you not derive that from the sources provided I really do not know. The Constitution was cited where this is explained. So were the election results which show these facts. WP:BLP states explicitly that biographies of living persons must be verifiable, neutral, and avoid original research. This statement is verifiable, neutral, and is not original research. It can be verified by looking at the election results and the Constitution. This statement cannot be removed. The second statement, about García Padilla's power, is about bills that are emblematic to his party. Andy missed that word, so did everybody else. There is a difference between trying to "enact, amend, or repeal" a law, and trying to pass one that is emblematic to your party when your party controls both the legislative and executive branch. This is an obvious fact in this case, but once again, I'm having a hard time finding a source ONLINE for this, even though this is repeated pretty much every week. If the problem is that the references provided do not EXPLICITLY say THAT VERY SAME TEXT then feel free to remove this sentence. I will re-add it once I find a reference somewhere else. However, you need to understand that it is of utmost importance that this is mentioned in the article as Puerto Rico has suffered from shared legislative powers in the past that have created issues in its history (see Aníbal Acevedo Vilá and 2006 Puerto Rico budget crisis. Similarly to what is happening to Obama right now with the Republican House. Now, about the graphs. Nobody is implying anything. These, once again, are FACTS, not observations. The statement says, "this is how the economy has behaved since García Padilla came into power", it does not say, "García Padilla CAUSED this". There is a BIG difference. You are the ones interpreting it as causation when such thing is never mentioned in the caption. For example, I just updated the second chart from the newly published data and guess what? Employment went up during his last month! The article now reflects this. Are we going to remove this as well? These are facts. I don't care if they are negative or positive. They are facts. Period. Here's how you can form that graph:
I'm not making this up. The data is available at http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/15.EAI-2013-10-01.xls Regarding jobs, we have the following:
Once again, I'm not making this up. The data is available at: http://www.gdb-pur.com/economy/documents/01.LABOR-2013-10-01.xls If the problem is the caption, then put something like "EAI since García Padilla has been in power" and "Payroll since García Padilla has been in power". Once again, these are facts, which are REFERENCED, verifiable, neutral, and do not constitute original research. We create graphs from statistics published by reliable sources all the time. If the wording is problematic then change the wording, but leave the facts in place. — Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 01:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|
No extensive discussion on the talk page as required by this noticeboard. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the suggestions which I make here. For general help, you might want to consider asking a question at the Teahouse. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Firstly, I recognize that this is not a highly trafficked page and hardly very important. The page is about a Spanish political party, UPyD. The dispute stems from the Ideology section of the Infobox and began in 2009. The dispute is over the terms 'Nationalism', 'Spanish nationalism' and 'Anti-nationalism'. Basically, I feel that there is evidence to support labeling UPyD as a Spanish Nationalist party, and have provided a recent editorial by that party's leader to justify this. I should point out that it was me who made the change to the page that triggered this dispute, and that I only did so when I felt that the referenced evidence was overwhelmingly in support of such an edit. 2 anonymous users are continually undoing this edit and I don't want to get into a war with them but I do think that for the integrity of the article, we reflect the true position of a political party, and not just its stated position. I believe that the anon users' opposition to this term is based on their reading of it as inherently pejorative whereas I feel that I'm including it for neutral, factual reasons. I have proposed removing or altering 'Anti-nationalist' to 'Opposed to Catalan and Basque nationalism' but didn't get any response. Instead, a new anon user started editing. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to engage anon users in order to resolve this, but received no response. How do you think we can help? We need a clear policy on how to complete the ideology section of the Infobox. Is it right to put verifiable items in that section - Spanish Nationalism in the case of UPyD - or should we stick to the party's self description (which to me runs the risk of turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool)? Thank you for your help. Summary of dispute by 213.254.88.62Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Union, Progress_and_Democracy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP case already under discussion at WP:AN. DRN only deals with disputes about article content, not about user conduct, especially off-wiki (IRC/Email) user conduct. — Guy Macon ( talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have helped this user from IRC, told her what to do what not, and called her pretty/super pretty cracked a joke, Emails on the talk page, and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard I accept full responsibility about my actions, however this about the article, and she is planning to sue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Article merger proposal agreed by everyone, I have told her to make a sandbox, a draft etc.... then edit the article, she can't even sign the article told her how to do it, doesn't want to listen. How do you think we can help? This is about the article not about me, if my actions are to be blamed for , I accept full responsibility, and if the Admins want me to blocked for sometime because of my actions I accept, and I have made formal public apology to her. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Colon cleansing discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Futile for lack of participation, but please see my closing note at the end of the collapsed text. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview In the article West Bank, I tagged the term "international community" as needing clarification (full quotation: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law"). I was reverted twice and so I started a discussion on its talk page. The reason I believe this term requires clarification is it is a vague term and it is not clear who in particular it refers to and I also feel that it implies a consensus which does not exist. The people opposing me seem to be ignoring my arguments as to why I think a little clarification should be added, and are maintaining that because "the phrase is sourced to 4 academic sources" it is not necessary to clarify it. Keep in mind that all I want is for the term to be clarified and I am not disputing the neutrality of the claim. My opposers don't seem to understand that sources are for facts, not for language, and so we do not have to copy them word for word. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried adding a "clarification needed" tag and have tried discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. How do you think we can help? I think it would help to get some more opinions on whether the term "international community" requires further clarification, preferably from people who are not involved with the topics of Israel/Palestine or the Middle East in general. Summary of dispute by Sean.hoylandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DailycareI think this can be resolved quite easily. The sources use the term without difficulty, so we can as well. One way to meet Wikitiki89 halfway would be to provide a wikilink to the international community article in the first instance of the term in this article. Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 20:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Frederico1234Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
West Bank discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. With two involved editors not choosing — as is their right — to participate here, this listing is probably futile. It will be closed after 15:00 UTC on 20 Nov unless those editors choose to join in. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
|
As it says in the instructions at the top of this page, we cannot accept disputes that are under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. KiplingKat has filed an ANI case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Drmargi -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The article stated he was 17 at the time he got his first entertainment job, joining a circus in Budapest. In a recent magazine, Armitage stated, in a direct quote, that he was 19 at the time of joining the circus. Many earlier sources had said 17 in noting that event in his background, but had not quoted him. (I suspect my of those sources pulled their information from Wikipdea). I corrected the age, including a citation of the author, title, magazine and issue in question because the article was not hosted on the magazine's website. I also stated in my edit that earlier sources had stated he was 17, but this was a recent quote from him. Drmargi reversed the edit, claiming that it was "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH." I pointed out it was not, that I had properly cited the source in question, and showed her a scan of the physical magazine article and put the edit back. She reversed it again, insisting on the Talk page that the edit was not verifiable. When I requested a Third Opinion, Span stepped in, siding with article and citation. Dramgi rejected that as well, I finally said we could post the both ages as conflicting with citations to both sources. She still wanted to dismiss the new information and she wanted to hear more people weigh in to get a "consensus.". Well, I am requesting help. This has been bizarre. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third Opinion. How do you think we can help? Please step in and make a decision that Dramgi will accept (Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been Summary of dispute by DrmargiWhat on earth? By KiplingKat's own assessment, there was consensus on an edit this morning, she made the edit, and now this? We discussed the various options for editing and agreed on a course of action with two possibilities for wording (omit age/add both ages with explanation).
(Note: comments that violate DRN rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct and Do not talk about other editors.) have been Summary of dispute by SpanglejPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No dispute from me. The four editors involved pretty much reached consensus about content. Each person's contribution is important. Patience and good collaborative working is key to WP editing. Span ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Richard Armitage (actor) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and dealing with one issue at a time. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.
I am now opening this up for discussion. I have I would like to start by asking each of you to posting without any extra comments the exact wording you would use if nobody else was editing the article. I would then ask each of you to reply with "acceptable" or "not acceptable", again without any extra comments. You will have plenty of opportunities to explain why you like or don't like various wordings after I get a count of who wants what. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) "After completing the program at Pattinson College, he joined a circus in Budapest for six weeks to gain his Equity Card. (Armitage has given alternate ages of 17 and 19 in different interviews.)" with proper citation. KiplingKat ( talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Conduct dispute. DRN does not, by its terms, handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. For conduct disputes consider RFC/U, ANI, or ARBCOM. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The user Mojo-chan seems to feel that he did not get a full chance to express himself in a recent discussion concerning a proposed name change for this article. He did have a chance to voice his opinion and did so, however, but although the discussion closed after 10 days (scheduled to close at 7) he felt that it warranted further discussion and opened it again, it was speedily closed. Following this, Mojo-chan has made several statements on the talk page indicating that he has further evidence he wishes to present, but has not presented it, claiming that he wishes to wait until later. People seemed happy to comply with this, but in the last few days Mojo-chan has again posted on the talk page criticising the tone of the previous discussion and requesting that others apologise to him. The consensus on the page is that everyone has been suitably correct and that Mojo-chan needs to either present his evidence or move on. Following this, Mojo-chan has begun to accuse others of showing bad faith and making personal attacks on him, which I feel is rather unconstructive and disruptive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have attempted to discuss this with Mojo-chan rationally and calmly, explaining that people will react better to him if he presents his case rather than simply promise 'more later'. I have, since he began accusing others of bad faith, pointed out how he can help move the discussion in a more positive manner, but he has responded by saying that he feels that I am patronising him. I have now taken myself out of the discussion entirely and wish to seek outside resolution for those still involved. How do you think we can help? I think perhaps a friendly word from someone on the outside advising Mojo-chan to back away and relax a little might be helpful. I'm sure he doesn't intend harm, but his action is not helping his intention and I'm starting to feel rather unsympathetic to him. He doesn't seem to realise that his behaviour is the instigating factor in this dispute. Summary of dispute by 24.149.119.20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DragonZeroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mojo-chanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Case Closed discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Stale. Past its 14-day life span at DRN and no volunteer has chosen to take the case. Consider 3O, MEDCOM, or RFC as an alternate source of dispute resolution. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Dear volunteer, the dispute is simple and could be decided on the spot, without digging in the article. Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence? There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement and deleted it . I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported). He does not agree (I suspect that he does not have a RS). He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it. This dispute is a restarting of the previous session which expired and the volunteer could not continue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? It is discussed in the talk page. I have asked at the help desk as well: Help desk How do you think we can help? I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating". Summary of dispute by Pluto2012When I see Ykantor writing "I suspect he has no WP:RS" and knowing the existence of this section several months old and that was endorsed by all the contributors who commented it, I have no idea what to do. This is maybe the 4 or 5th time and/or place where Ykantor wants to re-discuss the issue. Pluto2012 ( talk) 19:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC) 1948 Palestine war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
So, the first point is that, yes, Wikipedia editors are expected to write from a balanced point of view and when there is no one clearly-correct (that is, reliably-sourcable) position are expected to include all positions in their writing, supported by reliable sources, including those to which they are personally opposed. The problem then arises that an editor may say, "But there is only one point of view, or only one which can be supported by reliable sources." What then? First, we must assume good faith and refrain from inquiring into the editor's honesty or motives. (It is a well-established principle here, however, that an editor can over the course of time and editing demonstrate that he or she, either generally or in particular topic areas or circumstances, is so dishonest or one-sighted that they no longer deserve that assumption. In those cases, the proper remedy is to seek blocks or bans through ANI or ARBCOM, frequently preceded by a RFC/U. Since we do not deal with conduct matters here at DRN, I will wholly refrain from commenting or implying whether or not such action is called for in this instance, and express no opinion about it.) Since we must act in good faith and since the model of Wikipedia is collaboration, not competition, the good faith response to an objection that there is only one position is to demonstrate through the citation of reliable sources that there is a second position which must be reflected in the article. There may, of course, then be a dispute over the reliability and weight of those sources, but once that has been resolved, then it ought to be clear whether or not there are one, two, or more positions which must be reflected in the article to achieve NPOV. Where we may be in reference to this dispute is that Pluto is asserting that he has, in fact, done that, that is, has provided reliable sources to demonstrate a second point of view, but that Ykantor has failed or refused to address those sources, or possibly that Ykantor is asserting that those sources are not reliable. Is that, in fact, where we are? Or are we at the point that Pluto and others are no longer willing to assume good faith about Ykantor's honesty or ability to be neutral? If the latter is the case, then let me remind everyone that no one is required to participate in content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. If you do choose to participate, then it is incumbent upon everyone to do so without reservation and to assume good faith, not to do so half-heartedly. Pluto, if you feel that you can no longer assume Ykantor's good faith then I would suggest that you say you do not want to participate here and consider RFC/U and/or ANI. If you do not wish to Participate here, Ykantor may then consider a regular content RFC to try to get his desired edit into the article. If you do wish to participate, Pluto, then do so with the understanding that discussion of Ykantor's good faith, bias, etc., cannot play a part in this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (As a personal matter, after hitting "save" on this edit, I will probably be offline until at least sometime next Monday, so another volunteer may choose to take this up if they care to do so.) — TM
I'm afraid that you have misunderstood me, Ykantor: I was only asking about what others have said about you and what their positions were, going forward, which might affect the viability of this case, and was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with their views. Since, however, you have questioned my neutrality, I fear I must recuse myself from being involved further with this dispute, except perhaps for some purely administrative tasks, and must leave it for another volunteer to take up if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
|
After extensive discussion, some issues resulted in compromise while others were referred back to the article talk page or to WP:RSN. For a detailed summary see the Final summary and comments at the bottom of this collapsed section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear volunteer, please have a look at this issue.I have simplified the dispute to quotations deletion only, in order to attract a volunteer here. My Past DRNs has expired without solution, so I am eager to have a at least this one solved. The other disputant may reply with other problems as well, but I prefer one solved limited issue rather than a big issue with no solution. Ykantor ( talk) 09:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC) user:Trahelliven deleted quotes (footnotes). Once he was asked for the reasons, he replied with strange / bizarre reasons. e.g.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to explain myself and replied to his bizarre notes, but during each round he comes with a fresh story. How do you think we can help? by convincing either of us, that he is wrong. Summary of dispute by TrahellivenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ytantor has made several edits to Reports of pressure against the Plan in the last few days. I shall therefore comment on the article as it now stands.
I shall now go through the other quotations.
At least one quotation (8 -Rut Lapidot; Moshe Hirsch (1994). has not been reinstated. Can I take it that its deletion has been conceded? Trahelliven ( talk) 07:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC) On reflection, I shall explain the reason for the deletion of the four (4) quotes.
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello User:Ykantor and User:Trahelliven. I have read the case above and examined the relevant sections of the article talk page. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:
Part II
OK, it appears Yanktor and Trahelliven have agreed to "return to the 14 June version". We also note that Trahelliven has specified that this agreement does not preclude further discussion on the article talk page about ways to further refine or amend the sentence(s) so that it most accurately reflects available reliable sources. Is this agreeable to both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Coordinator's note: This is not a big deal, but could everyone be careful to avoid putting an edit or post in the midst of another editor's edit or post? It makes the discussion very difficult to follow by the volunteer (and everyone else) and makes his work harder by forcing him to have to go to the history page to make sure he understands what's right. It's fine, of course, to insert a response between two prior complete posts, so long as the new post is properly indented and signed, but it's not okay to do so in the middle of someone else's single posting. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Hi Ykantor, You mentioned at the start of this case that some of your prior case requests had been ignored. I'm beginning to see why:
Summary--OK, within the context of this DR, I am considering the discussion of "edit #1" to be resolved with the agreement it will be returned to the July 14th version (pending consensus of other editors at the talk page) and further changes will be discussed on the talk page amongst all the editors who are active there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Part IIIOK, moving along in our discussion of this edit to the second part, which we will call edit #2.
was supported by these two sources:
Rather than remove valid sources I'd generally think its better to amend the text to more accurately reflect what the sources say. Can we get quotes from these two sources that support the text under discussion here?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pluto2012, and thanks for your detailed analysis of the sources. Is there a way we can amend the sentence so that it more accurately reflects what the most reliable sources say?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Part III continued (arbitrary break)OK, so we have two suggested sentences:
Would it be a fair compromise to say?:
Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There is something wrong in the English of The Arabs rejected any form of partition. Is the sentence meant to imply that every possible form of partition was put to the Arabs? In that case the sentence should read The Arabs rejected every form of partition. On the other hand the use of any is hypothetical and does not necessarily mean that there were any canvassing of opinions at all. It is just that, if there were, all would be rejected. In that case the sentence should read The Arabs would reject any form of partition. The sentence, as suggested by Ykantor, somehow tries to fit between the two. He should make up his mind which he wants to say. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgetting Abdullah of Jordan, you cannot even say:-
It may be that on 26 November 1947 two Arab friends living in Telaviv were chatting over a cup of coffee and one said to the other, "I like the idea of living in Jewish state.". It would have been logistically impossible to have asked every Arab living in Telaviv on 26 Movember 1947, "Did you meet a friend over coffee and admit that you would like living in a Jewish state?" Trahelliven ( talk) 11:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Pluto2012. I for myself do not hold the view that an Arab majority accepted at least one form of partition. I do hold the view, however, that if the Jews had been offered nothing more than a square centimetre of Telaviv Beach, the Arab leadership would possibly have accepted such a partition. Trahelliven ( talk) 06:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Part III continued (second arbitrary break)OK, so the proposals on the table are:
Does someone want to propose a third version that they feel would be a compromise between the two that all three parties could agree on? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two distinct concepts here:-
Hence we may use either the combined sentence or any of the splits, as appropriate.(and each of the splits is rather concised). Ykantor ( talk) 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not foresee any special reason to use a split (rather than the whole sentence) other than concising it. Ykantor ( talk) 05:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
To summarize........ the sentence below has been agreed upon by both Ykantor and Trahelliven:
Since Trahellivien has rejected a proposal to split the sentence shall we stick with what has been agreed upon?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC) I think (and hope) that a slightly shorted sentence is acceptable:"the Arab leaders (With a few exceptions) rejected the U.N partition plan and said that they would reject any other plan of partition. Ykantor ( talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to Keithbob. My final word is that the new sentence sums up the section. Every aspect of the sentence is covered by references later on. Repeating those references would be repetitive. Trahelliven ( talk) 05:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for sticking my oar in late on in the day, but ... I suspect that a number of things may be being confused: what a specific group of Arab leaders said specifically in response to the outcome of the vote on the Partition resolution, what the public position of Arab leaders on the solution to the Palestine problem was in general, what the private position of various leaders was. In response to the vote, a group of Arab leaders rejected the Partition Plan. In the lead up to the vote, the public position of Arab leaders and representatives was that Palestine shouldn't be partitioned; it's unnecessary to say that "any form" of partition, which presumably refers to the infinite number of ways that a line could be drawn on a map of Palestine, was rejected, it was just partition that was rejected - the Arab position was that, in line with the 1939 White Paper proposals, Palestine should become independent as a unitary state. In private, King Abdullah was in favour of partition (and colluded with the Zionists) and a number of Arab politicians were willing to negotiate. ← ZScarpia 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Part IVThe next item up for discussion is from the same edit by Trahelliven which we have been discussing here in which they removed the citation (ref group=qt name="Lapidot1994p52"/) that supported the text:
Ykantor can you quote from the cited source (the UN document that appears inside the book by Lapidot on page 52) as to which part supports the text above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point to wait on this discussion till the other is finished. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor:Perhaps you might go to page 49 of Rut Lapidot's book and read the description of the document of which page 52 is part; then tell me why the Memorandum from the Israeli delegation is a Reliable Source. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The Memorandum is certainly a primary document. It is published in the Selected Documents, purely as a collection of primary source documents on the topic. To my mind being so published does not alter its status or value. Its contents is quoted, however, as if they were in a book written by Rut Lapidot and Moshe Hirsch and they are their considered opinion on the reasons for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. It is nothing of the sort. It is a document prepared on behalf of the Israeli government, no doubt attempting to persuade the UNGA to take certain actions. At best its evidentiary value is limited to showing that the Jews blamed the Arabs for the failure to solve the Jerusalem question. I am sure that better sources can be found to show that. At the very least, the insertion of the quotation should have made it clear that it was an extract from an Israeli government document. The quotation should not be included in the article. Trahelliven ( talk) 08:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
SUMMARY: I'm concluding part IV of this case and referring any further dispute or discussion about this source to WP:RSN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Final Discussion of Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013I should add that I attempted to delete four (4) quotes at 19:36, 22 October 2013. However I did not do it properly. They were rescued on 19:53, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, and 20:04, 22 October 2013 AnomieBOT, but as footnotes. I was not aware of this until today. They should be added to the disputed quotes. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob
Perhaps we might talk about the quotes, where I have commented: then we can move to the others. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor, thank you for clarifying that the current discussion concerns the sameSept 29, 2013 edit by Trahelliven that we have been discussing previously. We have already discussed the four sources that were removed. What I see left in that edit for discussion is:
Keithbob: I am lost on which matters you intend to continue in the discussion. (Lapidot is going to another place.) The others listed above,1, 4, 5, 6, 7,: 5, 7 - are they all now to be discussed? Trahelliven ( talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The embedded link they provided goes to a talk page thread that objects to this . So what we are doing is going through all of the changes contained in that edit. The last two items to be discussed in that edit are the two items I've listed above. Let's discuss and resolve those and then we can make a decision about the other quotes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 1Trahelliven, your edit removed this content and corresponding citations which you have specified in your list in the prior section as #4 and #5:
Can you explain your reason for this removal? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Keithbob
Ykantor:
Ykantor: Please remind me again. Who are Azzam and Kirkbride? Trahelliven ( talk) 09:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor:thank you for the reference to the relevant rule.
It is quite clear that Ykantor and I differ on how Wikipedia works or should work. Until someone, at the very least, gives me the identity of these leaders so that we can start by saying, X and Y threatened, I will not agree to the inclusion of the quotation. Trahelliven ( talk) 20:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
(from Morris 2008)
Summary: This appears to be a complicated issue involving many sources and it does not appear likely that it will be resolved in the near term. Trahelliven has indicated that he/she cannot find any ground for compromise on this point so I do not see the purpose for any further discussion here at DRN. I am therefore referring the issue back to the article talk page where it can be discussed at length amongst all the editors who are active on the article. Participants may feel free to cut and paste things they have quoted or referenced here, in this discussion, and forward them to the new talk page discussion as needed rather than reassembling the same information. Now we will move on to the final thread of this case after which I will close this case, which has been open for more than three weeks already and comprises more than 10,000 words of discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Final Discussion on Trahelliven's edit of Sept 29, 2013 (continued) Section 2This is the final thread and issue in this DRN. It concerns the last change that Trahelliven made in this edit, which is the subject of this case. Trahelliven removed this citation which contained an extensive quote taken from the source (see below):
Trahelliven can you please tell us what is/was your objection to this source and its embedded quote? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I attempted to find a reference for the report of the April 1948 of the United Nations Palestine Commission and for the address in the Trusteeship Council by the Representative of Iraq, but without success. Is this an improvement on the presentation of the Lapidoth quotation? Trahelliven ( talk) 22:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The source itself was written by Israeli government officials and is therefore hardly RS. The two embedded quotes stand or fall with the source. The source falls; therefore the two embedded quotes fall with it. Trahelliven ( talk) 02:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment
Final summary and closing commentsThis was a long case with active discussion occurring since October 29th. I believe that all parties participated in good faith and that significant progress was made. The two named parties in the case, Ykantor and Trahelliven, found common ground on some issues and other issues were referred to what I felt were, more appropriate forums.
As in any dispute it is often the case some or all parties may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. Please keep in mind that DRN "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues" and that its participants are volunteers attempting to find common ground and compromise in content disputes in a dedicated setting. I felt that all editors participated in good faith and I commend them for their willingness to discuss and find compromise wherever possible. There were some initial problems with editors making derogatory comments about other editors however, after some reminders this became less. I recommend that in future dispute resolution processes, whether here or at other venues, that all parties behave civilly and avoid filing cases simultaneously in other venues, whether the are related to content or behavior, as this can poison good faith discussions and create an unsettled and unproductive atmosphere. I also recommend that, moving forward, the parties take advantage of other dispute resolution forums such as WP:RSN, WP:RfC and WP:Mediation. Thank you and good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.