Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 75

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:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• EyeTruth (talk · contribs)
• Gunbirddriver (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The term "blitzkrieg" has been present in the article for as long as possible. Starting in 2009, certain editors suggested that "blitzkrieg" should be excluded from the article. Such opinions got nowhere due to lack of reliable sources to support them. These were long before I made my first edit in the article. Not long ago, an editor began flushing out blitzkrieg from the article. I felt it wasn't too bad if he was just trying to tone its usage down. But recently, the editor decided to flush out the last instance of Blitzkrieg from the article. I opposed it and pointed out that there are three sources (cited in the article) that explicitly support the usage of the term in that very paragraph – i.e. the Citadel plan exemplified blitzkrieg. Note that this refers to just the intention of Citadel. The actual campaign turned out to be a crawl. The editor returned with the backup of three other editors and challenged the inclusion of the term in the article. I requested that they should bring forward the sources that claim that the Citadel plan didn't envision a blitzkrieg operation. Not a single source could be produced. However, they pointed out several other sources never called it a blitzkrieg despite dealing with Citadel. This is true. But I told them that silence on a subject doesn't translate to disapproval or approval for the subject. But they insisted that since the campaign, anyways, turned out not to be a blitzkrieg irrespective of whatever the intentions were, there was enough reason to completely exclude the term from the article. They concluded that they have the majority in editor consensus and therefore went ahead to flush out the term. I pointed out that we do not have any sources disputing this; we have sources supporting it; and all we have are some editors disputing it; therefore, when all said and done, there is not much justification for this consensus reached by the three editors. No one budged.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion (over 70 KB of readable prose) to clarify all the underlying rationale behind the opinions of the different parties.

How do you think we can help?

Opening comments by Gunbirddriver

The events are mischaracterized in EyeTruth’s summary.

The main issue is to write the article succinctly and in a manner which clearly communicates the events to the reader. The term “blitzkrieg” was not used by the German military to describe their operational methods, and is a term that is poorly defined and misunderstood. Further, the term does not match the battle in either its planning or execution.

The article was in the process of being re-worked with three editors (Sturmvogel 66, EyeTruth and myself) being the primary parties involved in the process. EyeTruth inserted into the article the phrase:

Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel), was to be a classic blitzkrieg, eschewing attrition for a swift and efficient strike, featuring a double envelopment with pincers originating from the faces of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient

As shown here. The description offered above does not describe classic Blitzkrieg warfare. This was removed in a rewrite. EyeTruth then inserted it again here.

This was reverted and he was told to start a discussion about it. He then reverted again here, claiming that no one had started the discussion topic for him. It was pointed out to him that the format is Bold Edit, Revert and Discuss, with the onus being on him to initiate the discussion. The discussion was entered into to the tune of about 100 kilobyte. Four editors (Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus and myself) weighed in saying they were opposed to the inclusion of the term. They provided various reasons and sources. All of these were rejected out of hand by EyeTruth, who then on his own recognizance and without the support of any other editor inserted the phrase into the text again here. Another 100 kilobytes of discussion ensued, and editor Binksternet removed the phrase. EyeTruth then reverted again here, which Binkersternet reverted, and EyeTruth reverted again here, which had to be reverted back by Sturmvogel 66. I submitted a complaint against EyeTruth for tendentious editing here. It was at this point that EyeTruth submitted this topic for discussion here at Dispute resolution. He is a tad late for this step, and none of the other editors have softened in their opinion on the matter. If anything, the experience has hardened them into more strongly wishing to oppose.

It would appear EyeTruth is using this forum to again assert his opinion. I doubt he has any real interest in resolving anything, unless it is resolved to align with his own views. It’s a sad affair, and most of us are quite tired of it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

Blitzkrieg is a difficult-enough topic to define, with multiple observers describing it in various ways. Classic blitzkrieg is exemplified by Germany's lightning invasion of France in 1940, the pushing of the British to Dunkirk, and the initial attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. Other than these examples which are agreed upon by all observers, the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk as a "classic blitzkrieg" in the manner preferred by EyeTruth.

Instead, most of those historians who describe Kursk as some form of blitzkrieg say that it was a failed blitzkrieg, not a classic example. In M.K. Barbier's Kursk 1943, Barbier says on page 10 that the Germans tried blitzkrieg tactics in Poland in 1939; a position with few historian supporters. Barbier then says that Kursk was intended to be blitzkrieg by the Germans but it failed because the Soviets had found the proper defense for it. Hedley Paul Willmott writes in The Great Crusade, page 300, that Kursk was where the blitzkrieg myth was broken because of the effective Soviet defense in depth. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson say the same thing in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, page xi. Even Glantz who is EyeTruth's main source describes Kursk as the death of blitzkrieg. Kursk cannot be called "classic blitzkrieg". Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the point. It was intended to be another blitzkrieg but it failed epically. Obviously Citadel was a crawl. It was no blitzkrieg, but it was expected to be. Many army-level (and above) orders were all talking of shattering the soviet defenders in one, two or three days, and achieve operational freedom. Starting from day one of the offensive, those expectation and dreams were shattered. EyeTruth (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sturmvogel 66

The term blitzkrieg is so widely (mis)used that it has lost much of its specific meaning and, without a definition, the specific meaning of the term as used by an author is open to interpretation by readers. Most of the authors on Kursk don't actually define the term or do so broadly that it applies to pretty much any German attack anywhere and is thus useless in determining if the German plan for Kursk was a blitzkrieg. I'm partial to the definition used by the German military historian Karl-Heinz Friesner in his book on the French Campaign. I quoted it in full on the talk page, but the key part that he includes is that the operation must be going deep. Whatever else you can say about the plan, Citadel did not involve deep operations like Fall Blau, Operation Typhoon, or Operation Barbarossa. So, to my mind, it was not a blitzkrieg. That said, Friesner's definition isn't everyone's, so I think that the best thing to do is not to characterize it at all, following in the footsteps of the many historians who do not characterize in any form. EyeTruth disagreed, insisting on using the term as used by Clark and totally discounting the lack of use of the term by many other historians and participants. I believe that EyeTruth needs to learn the value of the silence between the spaces, much like the significance of the dog that did not bark in the night.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a DRN volunteer. Consensus has been reached, but there is WP:CCC. Hopefully a wider consensus can be reached with this DRN post. smileguy91^talk 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I what to know whether consensus is decided by number of editors voting for a motion or is it by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy? I'm not very old on here. And what I read in the policies about consensus seem to differ a lot from what I hear from other editors. So I would really want to know what is the "unspoken" norm. EyeTruth (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit of both, votes alone dont constitute consensus, especially when just in the form of a simple majority (not well over 50%). -- Nbound (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. So number of votes does matter to an extent. Thanks. Everyone seemed to be playing along that unspoken norm even though the policy never explicitly said so. I've been wondering ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I was considering suggesting that this be moved to WP:RFC, since it's not really a dispute, per se, but now I believe it belongs here. smileguy91^talk 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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 you have to then ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it. 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) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (a DRN volunteer)

Your personal rule of thumb is judicious and fair IMO. I have another question about the voting thing. If the minority editors has several reputable secondary sources that explicitly support their side of the argument, will those sources also be counted each as one vote? EyeTruth (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems the first volunteer has quit. So what now? EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm the specialized DRN closer. I'm typically called in when DRN threads have gone a bit too long. I'd like to see if I understand the problem. On one side there's a request to add the term blitzkrieg to the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term due to none of the sources describing the battle use the term. Is this correct? Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Nearly correct, but not exactly. On one side there's a request to retain the term blitzkrieg in the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle as such. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term because some other sources describing the battle do not use the term.EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Analogy: sources A, B, C describe courage as a virtue; whereas sources D, E, F also describe courage but are silent on whether it is a virtue or not. Therefore, since not every source on the subject of courage describes it as a virtue and since we (as editors) can easily see that courage may not always be a virtue depending on the circumstances, therefore we can't include it in the article. (Albeit not a single source that argues that courage is not a virtue has been brought forward). In this analogy, "courage" is "Operation Citadel", and "virtue" is "blitzkrieg". The thing about "depending on the circumstances" in the analogy represents the argument that Operation Citadel, irrespective of the original intention, turned out to be the opposite of blitzkrieg (and sources explicitly agree including those that described the intention of the operation as a blitzkrieg). EyeTruth (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading the discussion thread and now the continuing stream here, I am seeing a specific pattern. While I do not have access to the literature myself, based on the representations and characterizations I think that the "After the battle" characterization cannot be blitzkrieg outright. The definition laid out at the blitzkrieg page doesn't seem to qualify at this specific battle. I also observe that in the 2 sources given to assert the claim we have 1 that (at the time of the writing of the reference) did not have the qualified expertise or the references to be making the assertion of categorization. This source is also the one that is heavily relied upon to back up the categorization. I think with the significant demonstration of expert sources and the relative inexpertiese of the opposition, it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article. I do see behavior on the part of certain editors of refusing to accept that a consensus backed up by the expert sources. Obviously Consensus can change, but the issue should not be tested for a while so that further sources regarding the event can be gathered and presented in a logical manner. It is not logical to demand sources that explicitly deny a categorization. The fact that a categorization is not explicitly stated is an implicit assertion that the subject is not specifically categorized. Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What you just addressed is almost irrelevant to the dispute. You are addressing "After the battle" when the dispute is for "Before the battle." You just went off on a tangent and none of the sources were even claiming a blitzkrieg-characterization for "After the battle." I don't know what you saw that made you think the sources were asserting such a claim. In fact, I don't even know what you read anymore. I'm beginning to see a trend here. Editors read just a few paragraphs of the long discussion in the talkpage and jump to the conclusion that since my tone is kind of harsh, I must be some ignorant jerk. And then they just sympathize with the other side of the argument. Can't people control their sentiments and call a spade a spade? I'm not asserting that is specifically the case with you Hasteur, since I can't read your mind, but I suspect (in general) that may be the case for some of the editors that had gotten involved in this dispute. They jump to an off-course conclusion at first, and sometimes they later begin to make compromises or simply disappear when their conclusion become untenable. Although I couldn't admit it earlier, I think I can now see how my tone could trigger sentiments that could cloud proper judgement. But try and look beyond the sentiments, if there are any. EyeTruth (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that solution is too heavy-handed. I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but on the whole, I have to agree with Binksternet. The German forces went into battle looking to crush the Soviets at Krusk, only to be beaten back. The term blitzkrieg doesn't refer to the actual battle in this case, but to the German mindset going in, since a blitzkrieg-style battle proved to be impossible once the Soviet tank commanders started their effective counterattacks. Magus732 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Binksternet and Magus732. I think it should be noted that the Citadel plan called for a rapid (blitzkrieg) campaign but it must be made clear that what really happened was the exact opposite. Many sources (three from me and another three from Binksternet and there are definitely many more) are all on the same line of thought as well. EyeTruth (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (but not disinterested) comment: I thinks this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution. "According to X, it was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, but according to Y it was ..." I agree with Sturmvogel that the contrast may not be terribly well defined because not all authors use blitzkrieg to mean the same thing. But at least it gives the reader some idea what is going on. Otherwise it's unclear if the "death of Blitzkrieg", which is the label given several by several authors to this battle, refers to a failed attempt at Blitzkrieg or to a change in German thinking before the battle. E.g. quoting from

• Kursk:The Greatest Tank Battle, 1943:

  The battle for Kursk resulted in the strategic and operational death of Blitzkrieg. For the first time, the German Blitzkrieg, had not worked, as the Soviets restrained the German advance to shallow operational depths. The failure of the Germans to forge deep thrusts into the Soviet line had a psychological impact for both sides.

• Quote from Berlin at War: Life and Death in Hitler's Capital, 1939-45:

  Intended as a return to the glory days of the Blitzkerig, Kurks was envisaged by the Germans as an enormous pincer movement, to pinch off a bulge in the front line.

• From Kursk: The German View:

  General von Knobelsdorff could not capitalize on this success because it occurred on his left, and all of his resources had already been thrown into the center. The very hallmark of blitzkrieg was the concept of reinforcing success wherever it happened and maintaining enough command arrangements to reorient the axis of attack at a moment's notice. Yet what could Hoth have done differently, given the realities of his limited resources?

• From The War Aims And Strategies Of Adolf Hitler:

  Hoth planned to accomplish his penetration by standard blitzkrieg methods. The two prongs were to meet east of Kursk.

From these you can see various authors see this as a failed blitzkrieg. Not unreasonable to add this POV to the article. Finally, there are some books which do point out that the German plan was in certain ways a different from a blitzkrieg (or a flawed blitzkrieg from its inception):

• From Kursk: The Vital 24 Hours:

  The major problem with Zeitzler's plan, to attack the Kursk salient, was that aerial photos clearly revealed that the Soviets were building dense and deep fortifications there in order to counter such an attack, and that many Soviet tanks had moved deeper behind the front line. Instead of an open battlefield blitzkrieg, it was going to be a direct charge at dense antitank defences.

• From Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare:

  Operation Citadel was a German attempt to pinch off the Kursk salient. Unfortunately for them, Kursk was a completely obvious target, and the offensive against it marked a bankruptcy of sorts for German operational thinking. Zhukov could read a map as well as any officer and better than most. Soviet air and ground reconnaissance, as well as partisan groups active in the German rear, were able to draw a remarkably accurate portrait of the German buildup and intentions. Zhukov built no less than eight concentric fortified lines in front of Kursk, with more than 1.3 million men ready for the German blow.

Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Citadel was planned to run just like in the old days, but Soviet preparations faulted the German intention for Citadel. (I'm not sure why this whole thing is even an issue but I'm not surprised anymore since I've seen enough craziness in our planet and on here. Many dudes can't apply the simplest logic). EyeTruth (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (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:Aesthetic Realism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LoreMariano (talk · contribs)
• FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs)
• Ocaasi (talk · contribs)
• Trouver (talk · contribs)
• Outerlimits (talk · contribs)
• Nathan43 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a 2-day period (July 8 and July 9, 2013), FreeKnowledgeCreator made 38 changes to the Aesthetic Realism entry. Some of the edits were corrections; some copyediting; some which warrant discussion on the talk page. Because of the historical contentious nature of this article, when it was rewritten 4 years ago, every sentence was reviewed by all parties for consensus before posting and since then this procedure has been largely followed. Where it hasn’t (including by me, see Outerlimits March 13, 2012 comment), the change is reverted and editors are told to please discuss on the talk page before making the change. The rewrite was done in an organized and methodical way that allowed everyone to comment. Compromises were made on both sides and where there was a disagreement about an edit which couldn't be resolved, a neutral editor overseeing the rewrite arbitrated. I am more than willing and, in fact, would welcome, discussion about edits to the article. I agree with many of the edits. My objection is that important edits were thrown in with unimportant edits. I suggest that all editors stop making changes to the entry so that a complete list can made in an organized way to prioritize what should be changed immediately and what needs to be discussed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Began to make list to discuss changes but discussion keeps getting diverted into discussion of editors.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be helpful if all editors followed a set procedure for discussing, reaching consensus, and making changes--with a mediator present to keep discussion and consensus moving forward.

Opening comments by FreeKnowledgeCreator

There was nothing wrong with any of my 38 edits, most of which were very minor and uncontroversial. For LoreMariano to revert all of them, apparently because she objected to a small number of changes, was highly disruptive. That she even reverted edits that she has since agreed were improvements shows how bizarre her behavior really was. Her position, apparently, is that absolutely all edits, no matter how minor, must be discussed first. If that is her position, then it is preposterous, and the best way forward would be for her to abandon it and admit that she was wrong. LoreMariano complains that, "important edits were thrown in with unimportant edits." I don't know how LoreMariano defines "important" versus "unimportant". Some of my changes were more major than others, certainly, but what of it? There is no policy against making a mixture of major and minor changes when one edits an article, and if editors are able to edit competently and consider changes on a case by case basis, there is no reason why it should be a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ocaasi

Opening comments by Trouver

As mentioned above, quite a few changes were made to this article, which has a long, contentious history. As a fairly new editor FreeKnowledgeCreator was likely unaware of previous edit wars and the long-standing agreement to refrain from changes without discussion first on the talk page. Meanwhile, there is agreement that many of the edits of a technical kind (moving citations, removing spaces) and some word changes were good. Other word changes, however, are contentious. I agree that a method of moving forward must be established, and that all editors must discuss content only and refrain from making disparaging comments about the motives, intelligence or abilities of other editors. Trouver (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Outerlimits

It's possible to write and maintain an honest and informative Wikipedia article on certain philosophies and even religions. It's even possible to do so when adherents of those philosophies or religions participate in the crafting of those articles. But it's not possible to do so when adherents control what goes into those articles, especially if those adherents are not devoted to an honest examination of the subject, but instead insist it be treated hagiographically.

The Scientology articles on Wikipedia might serve as an example. …..They were scandalously kept in a whitewashed state by Scientology practitioners until a ban was placed on editing. (Anyone not familiar with this episode can reference Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia.) In short, it became apparent that Scientiologists had practiced a self-serving wiki-revisionism that kept the articles full of disinformation, overwhelming regular editors by dint of numbers and relentlessness. It was noted that this sort of problem occurs with fringe faiths with rabid practitioners.

In the past, mediators on the Aesthetic Realism article have ceded control over the article to its practitioners, and thereby enabled a sense of ownership in its followers. In a sense, it's hard to fault those called upon to intervene. There are precious few people in the world who know anything about Aesthetic Realism, and fewer still who care anything about it. It's not an important philosophical movement; it's a footnote in the annals of philosophy made vivid only by a brief period in its history where it advertised itself widely as the "answer" to homosexuality (the answer being that it would change gay men and women into heterosexuals). That, with perhaps a few minor scandals as they tried to infiltrate the New York City school system, has been their real claim to fame. With a very small number of people outside AR interested in editing the article, it has become a playground for AR enthusiasts, for whom it is virtually an article of faith that their goal in life is ensuring that no one speaks in any but the most laudatory and non-critical manner about AR.

We are brought to this dispute page by someone whose contention seems to be that the Aesthetic Realism article shouldn't be edited like every other article on Wikipedia is. She should, perhaps, have actually stated her dispute on the talk page of the article rather than for the first time here, but I suppose limiting one's dispute ending efforts to "making a list" is a real time-saver.

The sense of ownership here is so severe that simple grammatical changes are reverted not because the reverter disagrees with them, but because someone dared to edit the article without her prior approval. Clearly this is not a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue.

The methods advocated by LoreMariano have been tried and have produced the sad article we now have. It would be silly to think that simply repeating the same process with the same people is going to produce a different result. Over the period of time they've been participating in editing the AR-related articles, it's been very difficult to describe things in a straightforward, encyclopedic manner. Part of the problem is the tangential manner in which they prefer articles be written; instead of simply stating Eli Siegal committed suicide, they prefer periphrases such as "elected to die with dignity", and silently remove applicable categorizations that offend them. The reason the article's current explanation of Aesthetic Realism is so inchoate is not simply a reflection of the philosophy proper, but because it quotes and mimics the curious tangential manner in which treatises about Aesthetic Realism are usually written.

What is needed is a way to bring other, disinterested, Wikipedia editors to the article in order to counterbalance the undue influence that the Aesthetic Realism followers currently have. I doubt that this is possible.

Nonetheless, at a very minimum, the changes already suggested to bring the article into conformity with the manual of style should be implemented at once (e.g., referring to "Siegel" as such throughout the body of the article), along with the uncontested grammatical changes (notwithstanding the edit war over "a" vs. "the"), as should appropriate treatment of Aesthetic Realism's assertion that it converts gay men to heterosexual men (WP:FRINGE demands that the mainstream point of view counterbalance their fringe belief on this subject.). - Outerlimits (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nathan43

This article was worked over by editors with strongly differing viewpoints and a consensus was reached with great difficulty. The reason for asking for all changes to be discussed on the talk page first from my point of view was because historically when that didn't happen it led to edit-warring. I think any changes must be made very carefully and with mutual agreement.

It is important for anyone editing the article to look at the history carefully. Every sentence was discussed and argued about before consensus was reached, with the result that the current wording came to be. It was extremely time-consuming.

Some editors have had to endure insults, intimidation, and abuse that are completely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and ordinary decency -- and this has happened in posts in the last couple of days.

I respectfully ask any person who sees themselves as arbitrating to insist from the start that all posts be respectful and not cast aspersions on the motives of others.

I'll point out too that the article as it stands is thoroughly sourced. It's easy to take a glance at it and say it needs better organization, but what looks like a simple task may turn out to be much more complex and involved than anticipated. Nathan43 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is not open yet OPEN ,giving time for all notified to respond with opening statements but I am volunteering to help with this dispute. If it is allowed, participants may respond to opening comments above under the opening comments.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes from the volunteer:So far I am seeing petty editing disputes involving matters of style such-as, "The New York Times" vs "the New York Times"-this should be solvable via MOS-Manual of Style? And a more politically sensitive change between use of the term, "homosexuality" vs. "sexual orientation" type thing. The questions of this dispute seems to be one of how questionable edits should be decided and two:does every single edit to the article need to be discussed on the talk page?
The regular Wikipedia policies offer a great deal of guidance on how edits to the article should be done. If a particular edit is questioned, taking it to the talk page is the correct way to work it out.

Should the article be locked, or should every single edit be up for consensus? I don't think so. But past consensus seems to have been treating the article as-if it was protected. So maybe that should be looked into?

I have not yet seen all or other versions of what this article looked like in the past, but currently, it does appear to me to have some problems of giving "undue weight", to some topics, and overall, personally, I am of the opinion that a great deal of the material on the page could be placed on the Eli Siegel page. And also, my personal preference of style would be to re-arrange the article to put contentious topics under a sub-heading of "controversy"-Three items in particular, the homosexuality conflict, accusations of being a cult, and eugenics specifically. But, I don't know if I would be willing to do such a bold edit myself, especially considering the charges and evidence of article "ownership" that is attached to the topic.

For someone such as myself who is not familiar with the topic, and other users and readers, the article currently reveals exactly what has been going-on behind the scenes on the talk page, which doesn't speak well for WP or the article itself. Yes the "controversy" should be included, and mentioned in the lead, but overall, the article could be re-crafted to give a simpler presentation of the topic itself.So I guess that answers my opinion on #2. I do not think that the page should be locked and this idea of asking that all edits be consensual is equivalent to asking that page protections be put in place. My "perfect" version of the page would attempt to define the topic without undue weight or influence given to the founder or the controversies, while keeping that basic information in other sections on the page. But that is not the question here. I guess the question is should page protection be considered or not.
TeeVeeed (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As volunteer to assist, I think that I am as up to speed on the problem as I can get. Let's open the discussion. I'm going to ask a couple questions here:

Question 1: Was there ever a time in the history of the article, that "both sides", or "all-sides", were satisfied with the article? (both sides being any editor personally connected to Aesthetic Realism past or present, "all-sides" including random WP editors or bots)

Sorry for delayed response (out of town today). From Summer 2009 to Fall 2010 this article was revised under guidance of 2 neutral Admins. During much of that time the page was protected. Every change required consensus, and Admins made final decision where consensus could not reached. Their decision depended upon reliable sources being provided for statements. That is why quotes are provided from many citations that cannot be easily viewed. The Talk Page (top) links to both favorable & critical citations. As you can see, some editors will never be “satisfied” unless denigrating, ridiculing words appear. The present article, while imperfect, is an attempt to present opposing viewpoints without subjecting either to insults. It was the Admin, not an editor, who stated that it was inappropriate for personal details about Eli Siegel's life or death to appear on this page. After the article was completed and the page protect was lifted, it was stable for three years, although I think many editors felt, as I did, that any significant change should not be made without consensus. In fact, when an unknown editor deleted controversial material from the lede (where I for one do not think they belong--I agree with your "perfect" version) this change was reverted by Nathan. And in defense of the editor who admitted her error reverting all of FKC's edits, I note that 38 individual edits (even if many were minor) might concern someone who has experienced “attacks” in the past (and I am not accusing FreeKnowledgeCreator because these attacks took pace years before he began to edit). Trouver (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question 2: You can either lock or protect a topic, or not but if the article is not sanctioned as such, it should not be treated, "as-if". What is the objection, (if any) to page protection, and is anyone here willing to take a look at the question of page protection/locking for the article?

So, I have spent a great deal of this afternoon looking at the article's problems and although no one has yet responded to the idea of page-protection, that is what we are talking about from the way that I see it. Without getting into any personal attacks, strictly applying Wikipedia guidelines to all of the editors involved with the article, would eliminate the edit-warring problem by blocking or restricting editors who could be said to pose a COI- conflict of interest, to the article.

On the other hand, protecting the article could lead to restricting any or all editors who do NOT pose the risk of COI. So it is tricky.
Insisting that editors who are not aware of previous consensus, follow a special set of rules for this article, is impractical and contrary to the policies of the project. So in case anyone is wondering, that isn't going to happen and it cannot be enforced.
Therefore, my proposal is this: allow a specific short time-period, no more than a week or so, to determine an "agreeable" article, and to then apply for page protection. And if that, or some version of that can not be decided, to close this DRN, and allow the article to remain open to random editing, with the usual guidelines of WP being intact. That would include the possibility of asking that any and all editors seen as posing a COI with the material be asked to refrain from editing the article.
TeeVeeed (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing Page Protection options, I have no objection; it was useful before and is temporary. Meanwhile, it does seem that we are closer to agreement now than we were some days ago, and if the name calling can end, and all editors concentrate on content, we may still reach consensus. Trouver (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the various problems involved with editing that article, I don't believe protecting the page is necessary at this time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If comments could stay focused on text only I think we could make useful progress. It's very hard to look at text and comment when simultaneously your character is being attacked. I still think we need a neutral third party arbitrator in cases where consensus can't be reached. LoreMariano (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, in response to your two questions above: 1. I was satisfied that it was acceptable at one time. During the recent period of relative stability (the period from roughly January through June of this year) which followed the intense backs and forths that went on for more than a year – the article has an overall form that I can live with as relatively accurate.

2. I’m afraid that page-protection may be the only long-term solution.

I'm not sure about the one-week idea. Nathan43 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Page protection is a drastic option that shouldn't be imposed unless there is a compelling need for it. The burden is on anyone proposing it to show that it is actually necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Test-is this open? Sorry everyone there is a little problem with the way that this case is listed. I am trying to fix that, it has to do I think with my name change that I made awhile ago.

Also, a note, I think that there has been a request that another volunteer take over this case. Until I hear otherwise I am willing to stick with it. And I am sorry if anyone involved here feels that they have been "attacked" in this discussion by myself or anyone else.
As a reader and an editor, I have pretty much admitted that I do not like the article--especially as a reader. I have "fresh-eyes", as far as the topic is concerned and at first I was eagerly hoping to learn more about the topic. At this point, it still appears confusing. Starting with the article photo which is an image of the AR Foundation HQ in Soho NYC. If I were interested, (and I am not), in re-doing the whole thing, The article would be split again, with a separate article for the foundation, and and shorter article about AR with some images of work(s) done under the auspices of AR, or using the theater image which is now at the bottom of the article at the top with 2 other images that are already in the commons, (a poem, and prints by an artist heavily influenced by AR.) [|thumbnail|example of art that is influenced]
But that really has nothing to do with the questions posed here which I still see as a request that editing to Aesthetic Realism be handled as a "special case", and I continue to maintain that the best way to solve the problem is to instead use the policies and guidelines that are available to every other article on WP. For the main reason being that most readers and editors especially have no idea that an article has "special rules".TeeVeeed (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who requested another volunteer but it wasn't me. I think you've been a great help already. My experience is that it always helps editors deeply involved in an article to have an objective 3rd party neutral view. Your ideas above are intriguing and I am definitely interested in working to have this article the best it can be. Meanwhile, we seem to be making progress now on agreement as to some minor issues on the existing article, and hopefully this will continue. I don't think this article should be treated as a "special case"--can we have some clarification on this page from anyone who thinks it should be? Trouver (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you to everyone who has answered questions and contributed to the DRN. To clarify, and I hope that this is not taken to be intended as insulting in any way, but it was an attempt to define and make short-hand of the problem, I am the one who attributed the term, "special case" to apply to the way that the article has been historically edited, and which is currently being suggested to continue. What I mean by, "special case", is that instead-of following the expected and usual WP policy of editing, bold-editing...followed by any problems being discussed on the article talk page, that it be done in a "reverse" manner where suggested edits are 1st requested on the talk page, even though no protections are "officially", (and visibly), in place. Since a page protection is the only way that I am aware-of that most editors are familiar with, if the consensus were to be to want to use this, "talk first then edit" rule, I tried to boil it down to basically a question of, "special case" vs page protection, with the warning that, "special case" is a problem since it would be impossible for most people to know about the "special case" status until after they had made good faith article edits.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, including my own comments, I realize I had assumed the practice of "talk first then edit" was Wikipedia etiquette, probably just from the habit of doing it for so long on this article, but now I realize that it is not the "rule" and I am not asking for special treatment. My big objection is when insulting comments about editors appear on the talk page. As you can see from other Wikipedia articles, there are many living professionals who study, write about, and value this philosophy, (not to mention that the President of the City College of New York quoted from one of the major texts of its founder, Eli Siegel, in his commencement address in 2003) and the careless way accusations of "cult" are thrown around is not only inaccurate but dangerous. Trouver (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is one reason why I think that the foundation should have its own page. Again, no offense or personal meaning at all should be taken from, "special case", as it is very clear that the past consensus was to treat the article as such. New editors coming in and adding something about, "a cult", or other potentially contentious material to the article, probably isn't as big of an ongoing problem as some may think it is, since if mention is already in the article, and it is, (maybe unduly weighted imo), but currently there are only so many available citations and references to those claims and since it is a part of the article, even if every reliable source that could be found were to be included, (there is something on Rip-Off Report.com if that is even credible that could potentially be added), the current available sources are almost exhausted.
As far as personal insults on the talk page where editors are concerned, I think that part of the problem starts where a good faith editor trying to improve the article runs into complaints for not following "special rules". Resolving that situation could solve that immediately.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it was not me who asked for another volunteer. I think you've delineated the central problems. Your suggested reorganization thrills me although I don't think it's possible at this time. I agree that the controversial things are clearly present--even in the lead. The matter of homosexuality changing stirs up a lot, despite the fact that it hasn't been discussed at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation for over 20 years; other editors were insistent that this be present in detail. I would like to see if we can get the article stabilized again before requesting page protection--maybe it won't be necessary. LoreMariano (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe I misunderstood about being "fired" as volunteer-maybe it is earwig bot or my own mistakes that had me wondering, OK I'm staying with this dispute unless there is a major complaint. -I've come to notice that some articles and arguments may be ongoing on WP, but the way that things are handled tends to change. Although "talk first, get consensus, then edit", seems to have worked for this article and its editors, the tools that WP give editors and admin. do not back that up.
Getting back to the original complaint of a multiple edit, with some items possibly being contentious, and some or most being helpful contributions, in this case, even though it may be easier to roll-back the page to an earlier version, I don't think that is really being fair to the article's users, because you would be putting back errors.
Wikipedia does have policy in place to dispute edits after the edits are made. In the case of the multiple edits, there are two correct options that I see: 1-More editing but not in the form of a reversal that would include errors. and then if a dispute arises, 2-Discussing it on the article talk page. If there is an unsolvable dispute on the talk page, it can then be escalated.
If there are multiple disputes or a general point-of-view, (POV) dispute, continuing to hash it out on the talk page would probably be the best way to handle that, since it appears that no one is currently in favor of protecting the article at this time.
Although Wikipedia has the luxury of being an encyclopedia, and not restricted to providing a simple definition, this article still confuses me because a great deal of the content speaks about the AR Foundation and its founder. The disputes involved with the article reflect that. Even the dispute involving use of the term "euthanasia", could be avoided for this article, if the essay The Equality of Man were treated as a unique article, or at least covered in the author's or foundation's article. On the allegation of being a cult, and documenting the controversy and past activities per:"curing homosexuality", again, that points to the history of the founder and the foundation. So the question there is, does Aesthetic Realism exist without the AR Foundation? The way that the article currently appears most definitely says "No."-to that question, primarily because of the image placement, (AR HQ in upper right corner). But also because of the article length. I don't know enough about it to answer the question, so I'll have to go with the facts that many editors with differing opinions, including experts on the topic, have agreed on the article so far. The fact that the Foundation exists, and that there has been controversy and history, should probably be included in an article about AR- but further explanation of all of it, is at the expense of the main topic in my opinion. It is not clear whether the non-separation between AR and the Foundation, is intentional or not, if the foundation, "is" AR. If the answer to that is "yes"-then it would make sense, but currently that is only implied by the article. So, that explains my confusion and opinion with the article.
Even though I said that I am not interested in re-doing the article, that is because I do not have the skills. If everyone here can agree to take any current disputes back to the talk page, I would be very interested in watching further progress with the article(s), and I am considering the personal idea of trying to use the topic while I develop more skills on WP in article creation or re-writing, (don't worry I would discuss any proposed bold changes on the talk page;)).

So the question for everyone here is, Would everyone agree to take this/these complaint(s) back to the article talk page at this time? And what to do about "special case" editing for this article? And by that I mean, is there a subset of editors who want to continue to discuss on the talk page before editing, and is it too much to ask that any random or new editors to this particular page, follow this policy once they become aware of it? Maybe it could be handled like the Mormon Baptism for the dead, where once an editor is enlightened to the traditional page-editing process, they have a choice? There is nothing to prevent an editor from asking for opinions on the talk page before they make an edit, so that is every editor's choice. If an editor chooses to do that, and that edit is disputed or changed after it is posted on the article, that dispute could then be had on the talk page.
Unless there are any individually specific disputes, such-as which edit version should prevail in the article, I think that's about all that we can do here for the article and the dispute at this time.

The most sensitive aspect of this article regards homosexuality, and I am just posting here what I have posted on the Talk Page and on the page of FreeKnowledgeCreator concerning his resent change:

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I must emphasize that this section was written under the guidance of an Admin just because it was so contentious and the final language (which, again, might seem redundant to you) was the result. It is supported, of course, by reliable citations.Trouver (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to Wikipedia's much harassed administrators, "written under the guidance of an Admin" does not automatically mean the same thing as "good writing." The fact of the matter is that the homosexuality section is poorly written and tendentious. I've stated some of my objections to it on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what I've said about too much of the controversy and foundation/member history being included in this article, from a WP point of view, that particular quote would be a "keeper" for me too for 3 reasons. 1) It is a quote and it is correctly cited as far as I can tell. 2) Recommending that material be moved does not mean that it is not valuable and this article's "homosexual" information has already been tagged on the talk page as being of interest to a wider (LGBT) project on WP. 3) The whole topic of "curing sexual orientation", is an important topic and deleting reference material concerning that topic probably should not be done unless it is contained elsewhere on WP. See: Lou Reed

"bisexuality; he wrote about the experience in his 1974 song, "Kill Your Sons." In an interview, Reed said of the experience: "They put the thing down your throat so you don't swallow your tongue, and they put electrodes on your head. That's what was recommended in Rockland County to discourage homosexual feelings. The effect is that you lose your memory and become a vegetable. You can't read a book because you get to page 17 and have to go right back to page one again." —Lou Reed quoted in Please Kill Me (1996)"

From the entire section Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality, if anything is to be deleted, it should not be quotes or facts.
I was the one who deleted the definition of eugenics from the article. It was not necessary since eugenics is a topic that is covered elsewhere. The dispute involving "they/he did not call it eugenics"-when The Equality of Man (1923)essay was written, makes sense but the proposed deletion of, :"Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics" in favor of: "the present common feeling that men are unequal" takes away from the meaning of the fact that Siegel had responded to the rise of eugenics-based viewpoints in 1923. The sentence change there, although factually correct, dilutes the historical significance and context that the 1st sentence correctly presents.
In the section titled: Criticism and response, the last section of the article, the following sentence is hard to read and I'm pretty sure grammatically incorrect:

"Some former and current students of the philosophy have responded in a website titled "Countering the Lies," saying that the technique of the persons who want to discredit Aesthetic Realism is "1) to find out what characteristics a cult is supposed to have and, 2) then say Aesthetic Realsim has them (though of course it doesn't)."

-(and it has a spelling error). I tried to fix that in the article, but it was reverted, and as DRN volunteer I think that I should keep my hands off editing for now, but I'm surprised that editors are choosing to go-after the hard-fought facts and points contained in the article, instead-of the parts that are begging to be repaired.

You say that "facts" should not be removed. What I removed was not a "fact" but a piece of tendentious, confused writing. I removed it because I considered its removal necessary to improve the section. I'm happy to explain my position at this at length on the appropriate talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Have to be away a few days, but will reflect on everything said above. Trouver (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "impelled" statement? Because when I say "fact", I am including a properly cited quote, and that was exactly what I meant by "fact"-there? Or was it something else? Much of the article appears tendentious and confusing, I agree about that, but some of the compromises that are there do appear to be there for a good reason after careful consideration.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved party, the issue here is not content ("a" vs. "the"), problem here is control, who gets to edit the page and how edits "must" be done.

I think it is unreasonable to expect every editor who happens to come across a Wikipedia article to read an entire editing history before making good-faith edits. I'm weird in that I like to go to Talk Pages and see what the debates are all about but I think I'm unusual in doing that. Especially when you are talking about edits for typos, grammar changes, awkward sentence structure, etc., no one is going to do research before they "right" the "wrongs" they see.

I understand that there were painful disputes regarding this particular article where consensus was hard-won. But unless the page is protected, ANYONE can edit ANY article, even ones that are near and dear to your heart. No Wikipedia article is written in stone, forever in a state of permanency. Even the most brilliant articles are subject to revision, it's just the Wikipedia way.

I have encountered Wikipedia Pages where zealous editors have staked their claim and revert any and all changes that are made to it. That is annoying as all hell, but I'm not sure how that can be prevented. But here you have actually charged another user with disruptive editing because she/he didn't clear each edit with you first! As long as they were well-intentioned (and we should assume good faith), this is futile because no editor can prevent another editor from making changes on an unprotected page in the future. If it's not this user this week, it'll be another user at another point in time.

Are you going to charge every user who makes an unapproved edit with disruptive editing? If yes, then this problem will keep reoccurring. And I think the problem isn't with a casual editor who makes a well-intentioned edit, it's with the regular editors having ownership issues that, while understandable, are also unwarranted. This article, like every unprotected article, is not any one person's (or group of persons) property. You can still be a good steward and let go of trying to control every edit that is made on a page. It's not easy but it's necessary. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC

Nope, aside from some type of page-protections, it really can not be done. And I don't even know if I like the old-style way, since if someone misses a talk page discussion, they could be hemmed-in by someone saying that they had the chance to debate or dispute a change before it went into the article.

Really, I think that the article can be edited with the normal tools available. Is every single change going to be contentious? Maybe. Especially since much of the article was painstakingly worked-over. So if one editor comes by and changes something, it can be boldly undone, with an explanation in the summary or talk page if another editor objects. Once something is boldly undone, it probably should be talked about in detail on the talk page to avoid editing wars. There is ownership, but at least it is an ownership of all sides from what i can tell-not just one point of view, so it isn't a one-sided type of ownership or blocking, more of it seems editors not wanting to hammer out the same items repeatedly, and an understanding of what is lost with certain deletions. What does everyone think about trying to work with the current tools that WP has available, taking care to take individual disputes to the talk page, (after edits are made to the article)- to avoid 3RR/warring? The original complaint involved numerous changes, so that complicated things. What does everyone think about taking it one thing at a time, with the idea that "anyone can edit"?
I forgot to log-in but this is from the volunteer teeVeed24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems right to me. LoreMariano (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as any good-faith edit is not seen as a reportable offense, that sounds good to me. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave a full explanation for removing "he was no longer impelled toward men" on the talk page of the article, and I stand by that explanation. I refer anyone interested to the talk page. The article clearly needs to be rewritten, but unfortunately an editor is current arguing for keeping the article written in Aesthetic Realistic jargon. This is impeding progress at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN process question: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. The volunteer who was handling this case has not posted here in the last week, nor has there been any other edit within the last 3 days. Reading through this discussion makes me feel that it really ought to be happening back at the article talk page rather than here. If this listing had not been made part of DRN's now-failed subpage experiment it would, beginning today, be subject to being automatically archived unless at least one edit was made to it every 24 hours. Therefore, unless someone very strenuously objects, I or another editor will close this after 20:00 UTC tomorrow July 30, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I very strenuously object to the closing of this discussion. The normal process of discussion at the article's talk page doesn't seem to be enough to solve the problems at Aesthetic Realism. A great deal of disruptive and tendentious editing is occurring there, and the larger Wikipedia community needs to be aware of this. It's not constructive to close this discussion when other steps have not been taken to bring attention to the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss fixing the article here, but I do want to say that I support FreeKnowledgeCreator's edits to the articles as well as his/her ideas about the process. FKC appears to be an experienced and fair WP editor, which is exactly what the article needs. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the volunteer in question seems to have posted on the 25th, that is, four days ago, albeit as an ip. If you have suggestions as to other forums that can address conflict-of-interest editing and ownership of articles, they would be happily accepted. Suggestions on how to attract disinterested parties to the editing of the article in question would also be helpful. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I have been here but I am having trouble logging in and also my contributions are disappearing from my logs so I have to manually search for this topic. I don't even know if I would be able to close the discussion at this point because my log-list only shows me as being here for a few days and other log-in probs. FreeKnowledgeCreator---I understand what you are saying about a question of bias and jargon. That is really confusing for readers! But that may be a whole other issue? Unless there is anything else that can be done here, I will attempt to CLOSE this DRN sometime in the next two days. If you guys really want to dispute every little thing, you may have to bring them as individual issues. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the article, and the topic, but this started-out as a question about article protection from the way that I saw it, and/or edit first talk later or the traditional, (for the Aesthetic Realism article) talk 1st, then edit. I think that this long discussion has invited the attention of more uninvolved editors which can only help the situation and i think that a completely COI-free edit could really help improve the article.Housewifehader (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Added-I just visited the article and there have been substantial changes made to it. Since there are no sub-pages, such as :Aesthetic Realism Foundation, which is something that I strongly recommend, all of the info. is attached to the article. Although I do not think that particular individual items can be dealt with on this DRN, at this point, I do think that it would be worthwhile to fully dispute the cult question, with question like maybe should there be a new page created for Aesthetic Realism Foundation Cult Controversy? Or on the foundation itself as I've said with a more balanced and in-depth explanation from both/all sides. The latest edit has eliminated a link to a site that has info. about AR being a "cult".-And moved the cult-allegation to a nonsensical paragraph at the bottom of the article, not only out of the lede-which is prob a good thing, but there is no distinct arrangement or "controversy" section, which the topic of the foundation deserves in my opinion. The article now is less balanced then when this DRN started! The fact that the foundation has reserved an extensive section on their own website to answer those who call them a cult, reveals that this is a serious issue involving the foundation. I also object that the link that was deleted, was referred-to as "self-promoting". Again in this case, many of the page editors have a COI when it comes to that question, and if I were not the volunteer here, as a random editor I would be itching to re-apply that link to the article. The info. there was very enlightening and helpful in understanding the problems that, (again the foundation--see why I think they need their own article?) AR has.Housewifehader (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Process update: Now this is moving again, I've withdrawn my proposed closing. I note that Housewifehader is attempting to wrap this up, which is in her discretion to do or not do as the lead volunteer on this case, but let me note that this case is extending past its life expectancy for a DRN case. The philosophy here is that when a case takes this long, it's probably more than DRN can handle and either needs to go back to the article talk page or move on to mediation or an RFC. If this discussion stops for more than 24 hours, it's likely to be closed without additional warning. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK everyone, now that I have looked at how to close this, it has come to my attention that DRNs are designed mainly for matters of content not editing behavior, so I am going to close this out as a "procedural" close rather than say that it failed or was resolved. I do not think that we failed on the initial question and I appreciate all of the efforts that were made here. In moving forward with problems on the page, please keep in mind that questions about editing behavior will be better helped at Requests for comment, while individual content disputes would be fine right here. Thank-you everyone who participated and best wishes on improving the article.Housewifehader (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this was successful in at least one aspect: answering the question of whether prior permission to edit the article should be required with a resounding no. The conflict of interest problem is, as I thought, beyond the ability of anyone here to solve. As to having a separate article for the foundation, I think that unnecessary: without the foundation, there would be no one involved with the philosophy, so they are essentially identical entities. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Housewifehader for your help. LoreMariano (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (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.

17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Canada (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JackCommons (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Mccomber (talk · contribs)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• Max Freddy (talk · contribs)
• Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs)
• Taroaldo (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article on "Canada" under Section 7 titled "Culture," 'strict gun control' is listed and considered a Canadian cultural value. I and many others believe this is a false statement and politically motivated. An issue that is both modern and controversial cannot be held as a cultural value and should be removed from the article. The parties that disagree continue to demand their references be re-read, while ignoring provided references that disagree with their opinions. The conversation is going in circles.

The article is also protected making it difficult to edit without agreement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only discussion in the Talk area of the article.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully, by providing a fair and objective analysis of the references and facts provided in the Talk section (Talk:Canada 'Culture section and strict gun control'). A decision needs to be made on whether gun control is or is not a Canadian cultural value.

Opening comments by Moxy

All is sourced. Out of the 196 countries in the world today - Canada does have strick gun control...some countries have stronger controls but overall Canada does have though controls ,,,as sourced .see Talk:Culture of Canada#Gun control. Moxy (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mccomber

Opening comments by Walter Görlitz

It's my understanding that in relation to our southern neighbours, our gun laws are very restrictive, however it may be that it's not as restrictive as in other nations. I think that the section should be addressed in neutral, referenced terms. Since I don't have either, I will recuse myself from this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Max Freddy

Opening comments by Dbrodbeck

Opening comments by Taroaldo

NOTE: I have been busy and could not begin to work on my comments until today. Since this section has already been closed, I will look back at the article's talk page. I will say that I am surprised this dispute is still ongoing. Taroaldo ✉ 03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

The article does not say "'strict gun control' is...considered a Canadian cultural value". It says, "Government policies such as publicly funded health care, higher taxation to redistribute wealth, the outlawing of capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, strict gun control, and the legalization of same-sex marriage are further social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values." Presumably the value is "order."

By comparison, while most Canadian provinces once had prohibition, it was an indicator of the Protestant value of temperance, not a value in itself.

I recommend this application for DR be rejected, because there is little support for JackCommons' position.

TFD (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment (perhaps a quick wrap-up): Is there any reason why we cant drop "gun control" completely or rewrite that sentence. Canada having strict gun control is only true from certain POVs. Its also meaningless anyway, its like saying Germany has "lax speed control" (because of the Autobahns), and this is indicative of of Germany's political and cultural values. -- Nbound

Nbound: I agree and also believe simply removing "gun control" would be the best and easiest solution.- Jack Commons.

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.

19 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Salvatore J. Cordileone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs)
• Scrivener-uki (talk · contribs)
• DBD (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Regarding the appointment of Catholic bishops and archbishops to dioceses. Canon law says that they do not obtain the powers of governance until they are installed. Many editors are coming in, upon the announcement of a new appointment, and add information in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For example, Cordileone was bishop of Oakland until he was installed in San Francisco, but his article immediately said he was archbishop of San Francisco upon his appointment. Articles for the corresponding "old" diocese are immediately changed to Sede vacante while these bishops remain in control. Articles for the corresponding "new" diocese are immediately changed to the new leadership when they are in fact typically "sede vacante" upon the acceptance of the emeritus bishop's resignation.

This dispute is still going on, at Talk:Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, and is somewhat intractable because there are many, many editors involved: many IPs and others come in to edit their own diocesan article and local bishop bio. I attempted central discussion of this on the Catholicism WikiProject but got little response.

This is a perennial, chronic problem which crops up every few weeks as the Holy See issues appointment notices and it festers on a few articles for a few weeks or months and then the problem goes away when the bishop is installed.

Part of the problem is an over-reliance by editors on the unreliable source catholic-hierarchy.org, which is user-generated content with a single site admin who does all the work and no reputation for editorial oversight: i.e., not WP:RS.

More of the affected articles, those which received discussion, are listed below. A list of all affected articles is large; there have been scores of episcopal appointments in the two years since Charles J. Chaput sparked this realization that perhaps we should wait before updating infoboxes and the like. A full list of all affected articles is Category:Catholic bishops plus List of Roman Catholic dioceses (alphabetical); eventually, every one will undergo a new appointment from Rome and be affected by WP:CRYSTAL violations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Exhaustive discussion in all sorts of places:

• Talk:Charles J. Chaput#The info box.
• Talk:Samuel J. Aquila#Appointment to new diocese
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism/Archive_2012#Episcopal appointments and WP:CRYSTAL
• Talk:Salvatore J. Cordileone#Bishop of Oakland until his installation date
• Talk:Mario Poli#Catholic bishops do not change their see until installation

How do you think we can help?

Please achieve a consensus of the facts based on reliable sources and reflecting current Catholic practice. Canon Law has not always been this way, but this is the current situation and it can be respected and accommodated while staying within Wikipedia policy. The incorrect updates are threatening the integrity and factual accuracy of Wikipedia and a violation of the policy Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

Opening comments by Scrivener-uki

I don't know why I am involved in dispute with the Salvatore J. Cordileone article since I've never made any edits to that page. I very rarely edit United States Catholic bishop/archbishop articles, I am mainly involved with United Kingdom and Ireland bishop/archbishop articles.
I do have dispute with Elizium23 who removes current appointees from lists/tables of bishops/archbishops because he/her believes they should not be listed until they have been consecrated and installed. I do not dispute that those current appointees have not yet taken control of their dioceses, but I do dispute that they are being removed until they are do take control. There are many people in the past who have been appointed/elected/nominated/etc but for one reason or another were unsuccessful taking control of their dioceses, yet they are listed in the various lists/tables of bishops/archbishops. If people in the past are listed, then there is no reason why current appointees shouldn't be listed, so long it is made clear they haven't yet been consecrated and installed. I suggest the names of those current appointees should be in italics, and only when they are consecrated and installed that they be put in bold.
Two publications Handbook of British Chronology (ISBN 0-521-56350-X) and Maps, Genealogies, Lists: A Companion to Irish History, Part II (ISBN 0-19-821745-5) lists not just successful candidates but also unsuccessful ones. If those publications are listing them, then surely Wikipedia should do the same?
However, if it is decided that current appointees should not be listed until take control, it would effectively mean that any unsuccessful ones in the past would have also have to be removed, leaving only successful ones left. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since this DR/N has been reopened and further has been added above, I've added further comments of my own.
Number 1 of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." An appointment of someone to an Episcopal see is notable and almost certain to take place. Unlike political offices, which have two or more candidates and have to stand for election, ecclesiastical offices have only one candidate who has already been appointed. Baring very rare unforseen circumstances those appointees formally take control of their ecclesiastical office once they have been consecrated and installed.
In addition to the two publications I've mentioned, there is a website British History Online: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae which records of bishops and higher clergy for the dioceses of England and Wales from 1066 to 1857. That website lists not just successful ones but also unsuccessful ones. So if those publications and that website can list unsuccessful candidates, then there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't list current appointees. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (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.

22 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LusoEditor (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)
• EVula (talk · contribs)
• Aspects (talk · contribs)
• EEMIV (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

As it can be seen here, user User:SudoGhost argues that this picture is violating WP:NFCC and that a cosplay picture from Commons would do just fine. However, I've justified the use of the picture on every policy criteria not only on its respective page but also on the discussion present in the talk page of the article 'Jedi'. Two users User:Aspects and User:EVula have entered the discussion supporting my argument. Since a consensus hasn't been reached, I come asking for a dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Waited for the opinion of other users on the matter.

How do you think we can help?

This seems to be a matter of interpretation of a violation (or lack of, in my opinion) of non-free content criteria. I hope some clarification.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

Opening comments by EVula

Opening comments by Aspects

Opening comments by EEMIV

Closing discussion initiated by volunteer Amadscientist

_{The following is not to be misunderstood as a discussion of the actual dispute, but whether the argument made by the initiating volunteer is sufficient to decline this filing and close with recommendations to the best venue.}

As a regular volunteer here at the DR/N I would like to mention something that may be relevant. Non Free content is generally handled at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Files for deletion. In general, the argument appears to be the criteria of NFCC.

NFCC#1:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

and

NFCC#8:

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I would like to propose that this filing be closed as "Wrong venue" and suggest Wikipedia:Non free content review.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. A volunteer will open this for discussion once all parties have made their opening statements. I'm posting this simply to procedurally note that I have added and notified three additional participants, two mentioned by the listing editor and one other who participated in the discussion at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 23 July 2013 (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.

26 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Skyfall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nsign (talk · contribs)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A few months ago a dispute arose on the 'Skyfall' article regarding the identification of a character within the plot section that gave a misleading impression of the narrative. A consensus was reached and mediated by an administrator that the plot section should reflect the narrative and the change was made. The discussions can be seen here: diff and diff.

The final decision was as follows:

"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"

The agreed change has been arbitrarily reverted and when I have changed it back, have been accused of "edit warring" by user SchroCat: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Talk:Skyfall#Moneypenny.27s_name_-_revisited).

The objection is that to reveal the character's identity at the beginning of the plot section is a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. I assert that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link.

The reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid and I see no requirement to open a second discussion on this matter that would simply re-state old arguments when no new relevant material or evidence can be brought to bear here.

SchroCat's assertion that the information is a "spoiler" and was a reason advanced for its ommission is a straw man. This was not a factor in the consensus or the admin's decision which is why the identity of the character remains in the lead section prior to the plot description. Any reference made to "spoilers" is an attempt to deflect the argument. The objection and previous decision were, and are, based solely on the fact that it is a misrepresentation of the narrative.

I reject SchroCat's assertions that unchallenged changes (at least until they were noticed) represent a new "status quo" or a "de-facto" consensus. Consensus was reached and the reasoning remains valid unless there are new arguments that can convincingly rebut the reasons for the existing decision.

Additionally, SchroCat asserts that "the previous RfC was closed on the available information at the time. Subsequent to that decision, ‎DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are known until the final scene". This information was in fact available at the time - the film has not been edited since then. If therefore there is no reason to identify the character as Eve, there can be no reason to identify her as Eve Moneypenny, either.

He also asserts, "there seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...".

I would rebut this by pointing out the previous RFC: "There is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Thus, to use the full name of the character at this point is a clear mischaracterization of the narrative as it implies the identity of the character has been revealed, when it fact it is explicitly and deliberately not revealed until the concluding moments of the narrative. SchroCat's opinion that it is "farcical" is purely his own opinion.

SchroCat quotes WP:FILMPLOT as follows: "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". I would rebut this with the previous RFC decision which stated with reference to the misrepresentation of the narrative, "So, as a matter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to", because as stated, to do so in this instance is to misrepresent the narrative as told.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous discussion and consensus reached as above.

For the avoidance of doubt - the debate was not about "spoilers" and the decision was reached without any consideration of "spoilers". As can be clearly read, the decision was made because, "...common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Nothing about "spoilers". That's a straw man and irrelevant to the discussion. Nsign (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

I request that this user be instructed that a consensus exists and a decision made. Without further consensus they are violating this decision without any justification or mandate, and should refrain from editing the section unless they can provide any reason not already covered.

Or just call her Eve. As previously agreed by consensus and RFC. Nsign (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SchroCat

An RfC was opened in October 2012 when the film was recently released (although not in all territories). Much of the debate was around the complaints that having the name up front was a spoiler to the film, which has lessened now that the film has been out for some time. At that time—October 2012—a consensus was achieved from the RfC not to have the name up front. It is now eight months later and the consensus has changed. In March an IP editor altered the text to put the Moneypenny link at the top of the plot. Since then DonQuixote has reverted a change back to the previous version, as have I. With the Moneypenny name being present at the top over the last eight months, there is an implied consensus in having it where it currently is, despite the mild edit-warring of Nsign to try and force the change to his preferred version once again, and despite his comments that I "fart around with justifications" while discussing the matter on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with the term "in violation of the RfC", but yes, an IP editor inserted the term (not "several weeks" ago but four months ago, on 19 March). The name has remained in the opening lines of the plot section since that date. In other words, it has spent as much time in the opening lines as the previous version did. The consensus that existed eight months ago has changed in the interim to what is now the new status quo, and as such is a de facto consensus.

On a related point, I'm not sure that DRN is the right way to address this point: there was scarcely much of a discussion before this was opened and an RfC would seem to have been the more sensible and appropriate course to take. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the previous RfC was closed on the information made clear at the time. Subsequent to that decision, ‎DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are know until the final scene. There seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...". As per WP:FILMPLOT, "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen", to aid the reader, and this is the case with the status quo that is present on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also add that the talk page thread on this has confirmed that a consensus clearly has been formed that the current version is valid and preferred, with only Nsign preferring the old consensus. Most of those who have commented have pointed out how this is possible under the various policies and guidelines that we use for film plots. The previous RfC decision was based on erroneous information provided, and the closing summary that "practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully", is not strictly true. Most plot summaries on Wiki are not 100% faithful to the film narratives: they move names and information around to aid reader. This is exactly as per WP:FILMPLOT, which states "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot". This is exactly what we have in place at the moment: a very, very minor re-ordering to aid understanding and to avoid the frankly ridiculous and farcical alternative of having to refer to "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed agent..." in opening line, "Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and the same unnamed female agent from the opening scenes..." partway through the plot and then finishing with "Following M's funeral, the previously unnamed female agent who we've seen twice already, introduces herself as...". Farcical indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" or opening this for discussion at this time, but merely asking for a clarification. I've read through the opening material and am not at all certain that I understand the situation, so let me see if I can sum it up correctly: There is a character named Eve in the film who appears early on and who towards the end of the film is surprisingly revealed to be Miss Moneypenny. To reveal her identity at the beginning of the plot section was seen by some as a spoiler and/or a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. Nsign now asserts that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link. Nsign recently countered that, nonetheless, the reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid. Is that about the size of it? Please answer in your opening comments section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Please do not comment on one another's positions or discuss this matter, other than to answer my inquiry, until a volunteer opens this for general discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have amended my comments above as requested. Nsign (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good enough to move on to the next step (and I'm still not opening this for general discussion or taking it, but still trying to just tee it up for the best possible response by a volunteer). It is clearly possible for intervening discussion or edits to set aside a previous consensus, so could the editors please provide the diffs of all changes to the article text in question between the end of the RFC and today? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC closed at 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC). As far as I can see,

• 19:28, 19 March 2013 An IP editor moved away from the RfC version
• 23:23, 10 May 2013 It was tweaked to a halfway point (piped link, rather than unlinked)
• 06:06, 11 May 2013 I reverted
• 17:02, 11 May 2013 The same editor reverted to the halfway version
• 17:05, 11 May 2013 A third party reverted back to the current version
• 05:28, 23 June 2013 It was reverted back to the RfC version
• 06:04, 23 June 2013 I reverted
• 12:30, 26 July 2013‎ Nsign changed it today
• 12:34, 26 July 2013‎ I reverted back
• 12:50, 26 July 2013 Nsign again reverted back
• 12:51, 26 July 2013‎ I reverted back to the status quo

As far as I can see, this is the full history of that particular piece of text. I'm not a bot jockey, so I've had to do it manually and therefore I may have missed something. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if a volunteer now picks this up. I thought that I would be able to do so myself, but now that I've looked into the history (thanks to SchroCat for the detail), I believe that the issue of whether the RFC consensus has been set aside by subsequent implied consensus is a very close question. Unfortunately, in looking at that issue I have come to some very strong personal opinions about the way this matter ought to come out and about the result reached in the RFC and I fear that those opinions may be tainting my opinion about how the implied consensus question ought to come out. In light of that, I must recuse myself from this matter in accordance with DRN rules. I'll post a note at the DRN talk page saying that and asking for another volunteer to take this up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - thank you for your honesty. Nsign (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the issue I can't actually decide which side of the fence I come down on so would be willing to take on this case. Give me some time to fully read up all the supporting content surrounding the dispute and I'll try get back to this within 24 hours. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cabe. If you need any more info (from either of us) please let us know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Nsign (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• SchroCat: prefered version
• Nsign: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&oldid=565876336

The current version for me. This also appears to be the consensus according to the recent thread on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Can I ask that, in general, when you refer to a thread or similar you provide a link, it makes finding exactly what you are referring to easier and avoid confusion/misunderstandings Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked to provide the link. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. Now we'll wait for Nsign Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Preferred version as per previous consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&oldid=565876336.

Schrocat asserts above that his preferred version "appears" to be the new consensus according to the thread referred to. This "consensus" consists of the support of users Dr. Blofeld, Betty Logan, DonQuixote, Cassianto and SonOfThornhill. I'd point out that the consensus reached via RFC is supported by users Charlr6, SilverSeren, BletheringScot, A wild Rattata, edbrims, 331dot, MisterShiney, a further 4 IP editors and administrator beeblebrox who made the final decision, unless they have since changed their minds. We could always ask them again, but it seems farcical if we need to do this every couple of months when someone changes it back and asserts the existence of a new "implied consensus" or a "de facto status quo" (if these are indeed defined Wikipedia policies). Nsign (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Nsign, consensus can change especially when dealing with things that are time-sensitive. What was important at one point may be different in the future. Also, 'implied consensus' is a policy: WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" If Schrocat wants to launch another RfC to determine if consensus has changed then he's perfectly entitled to. I ask you both: If an RfC was to take place would you respect the outcome regardless of which way it comes down? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would, but my preference would be to just have a ruling on it, rather than another discussion which will simply be re-stating old arguments. The consensus was, in fairness, not unanimous, and the change was made due to admin making a decision. I can't see how this coming out any differently so ultimately would it not be a waste of time when admin will probably end up deciding anyway? Nsign (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At DRN we are volunteers and have no authority over the articles or users which come to the board. The best we can do is mediate an agreement between the editors and try to come to an agreement. If you both agree to have an RfC then feel free to list it. I could make a 'ruling' on this dispute but it'd just be my opinion and wouldn't carry any more weight that yours or any other editor. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the edits made were in fact not in violation of the RFC and that a new consensus does in fact exist, and that in order to reinstate the version agreed by RFC I must open a new RFC? The recused volunteer described it as a "very close question" and I'd prefer some clarity on that before we think about a new RFC. I suspect a new RFC would simply be a repeat of the old one and if I'm completely honest, I'm not sure I have the time or the willpower to go there again. Nsign (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, I'm saying that the edits are valid and go a ways to establishing a consensus however, silent consensus is the weakest consensus. Think of it like a challenge to the current consensus. It's gain enough weight that it can't simply just be dismissed but, at the same time, it can't become the new de-facto consensus. Instead of debating which consensus is the valid one (consensus on which consensus?) we simply throw away both previous consensuses and establish a brand new one based on current information available. I.e. instead of chipping away at the current ones to make it fit, lets bin them and start fresh Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. However...(wait, come back!) does this not set a precedent whereby once a consensus is established via RFC, it can be freely violated and even though, as you say, the edits cannot become the new de-facto consensus, we simply hold another RFC and repeat the exercise? Sorry, I know I'm being a pain :) Nsign (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also - the edits as outlined above were done without discussion and when editors tried to move back to the consensus version, were simply reverted, as was I until I raised it on the talk page. Nsign (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An RfC is an informal procedure, it's not binding. Its similar to a straw poll in that it guages the general consensus of the community at that time to help resolve a dispute. Even MedCom isn't binding. See this image:

You don't 'have' to do an RfC, you could agree between yourselves on a compromise but it seems both of you are standing by your stances. An RfC is asking the community to decide for you and only works if you respect that process Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree but I'd argue that the process wasn't respected, which is why we are here. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Well, the edits were disputed but attempts to move back to the consensus version were simply reverted.

I realise this may be pedantic but I can't see a valid reason for simply "binning" the existing RFC. Nsign (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they weren't discussed. That boat has sailed I'm afraid. If they were discussed appropriately at the time then perhaps we wouldn't be here but they weren't. As such we treat things as they are now not how they were or potential could be. This goes back to my comment on lets throw it all away and start fresh rather than looking back. Both of you have agreed to have an RfC to resolve the issue, I'll leave this open for further comments for a short period but I expect to be closing it within 24 hours Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the method of simply repeating the whole process as a means of resolving this. However your point that if discussion had taken place at the time we wouldn't be here is well taken. It was remiss of myself and the other editors who supported my position not to watch the article following the RFC to ensure it wasn't violated and this is the result. I'll therefore accede to another RFC. Nsign (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. It was violated and those who tried to fix it were simply reverted without discussion. The circumstances behind the logic of the decision have not changed since the RFC. And I don't agree that a new RFC is the appropriate course but it has been presented to me as the only option. Nsign (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. I have opened the RfC on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (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

• Gospel of the Ebionites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ignocrates (talk · contribs)
• John Carter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute over content has been dragging on for several weeks on the article talk page. A section of the article is now tagged with a NPOV-tag despite a previous good-faith effort to meet the editor's objections over weight. The disputing editor has so far refused to respond to requests for specific solutions to resolve the dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page has been tried, including input from two uninvolved editors and an informal mediator. The same editor requested a FAR which has been in progress for about a week. A WP:3O by a third uninvolved editor has also now been tried.

How do you think we can help?

The oversight of an outside party is requested to facilitate the discussion.

There is a serious question here regarding whether among other things Ovadyah/Ignocrates, whose history of contributions reveals that he is virtually an SPA regarding early Ebionitism, who has himself admitted to engaging in e-mails to the leader of a completely non-notable minor religious group, the Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community, regarding content relating to the historically significant group and notable group of early Ebionites. However, although there are other non-notable groups which claim to be restorations of the early Ebionites, there is no clear evidence that they were ever contacted. That editor has also been described by an IP editor claiming to be the leader of that group as someone who left that group, for unspecified reasons, but who still apparently thinks that it should be notified of developments to related articles here. There are I believe very real and serious questions about whether an editor with Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history is really a good choice to develop, or even have much input in, our content related to that historically significant precursor to the non-notable "revival" group. Personally, I believe at this point, given the other behavioral issues that this individual has exhibited over the years, that Arbitration is the best option to seek here, and am in the process of preparing an evidence page of documentation to submit to that body before filing the official request for opening a case on this matter. I believe that is probably the most direct way of dealing with this situation. The evidence page, FWIW, can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2013 (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

• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GreekParadise (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Grahamboat (talk · contribs)
• SMP0328. (talk · contribs)
• SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)
• Inijones (talk · contribs)
• Kvng (talk · contribs)
• Wzrd1 (talk · contribs)
• 10stone5 (talk · contribs)
• Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)
• J8079s (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right. Two Supreme Court cases, dozens of appellate cases, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, and hundreds of articles (including a good report in the New York Times) from 1939 to today back up that that was indeed the law at that time.

In 2008, in the landmark Heller decision, the US Supreme Court changed the then-prevailing legal interpretation of the Miller case of 1939 and held that the right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to service in a militia. A 5-4 opinion written by Scalia in 2008 said they were clarifying but not actually changing the law and the earlier cases were wrongly decided. Four dissenting justices disagreed and would have maintained prior law.

CRUX OF DISPUTE: Should we (A) state the law as it existed from 1939-2008 and cite the post-2008 law as well? Or (B) should we ignore all prior law that conflicts with current law?

Some editors claim there is no need to mention the prior interpretation of law because, they say, the law as it existed in 2008 IS the same as the law as it existed from 1939 to 2008 because, citing Scalia, the earlier cases were "wrongly decided". They have therefore deleted all reliable sources from 1939-2008 that describe the law as it existed pre-Heller.

Other editors believe both pre-Heller and post-Heller views should be in the article (including the Heller view that the pre-Heller cases were wrongly decided). This would be similar to the article on Brown v. Board of Education, which mentions prior law (Plessy v. Ferguson) even though saying earlier law was wrongly decided.

Some also want to quote from an article in the NYT that states how activists managed to change the legal interpretation from "militia" to "individual" in the late 20th Century.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There's been detailed discussion on the talk page that has gone on for pages and pages since I've been involved in January. Probably hundreds of thousands of words and sharp disputes. Interestingly, if you check the archive, you can see a version of this question (how to describe the "militia v. individual view") has been argued over for 35 archived pages dating back 5 years, often with many of the same editors.

How do you think we can help?

If you can answer the fundamental question of whether to include the law as it actually existed from 1939 to 2008, this will solve the primary problem. Half of us believe all prior law should be included. The other half believe only this 70-year period of law should be excluded from the article or de-emphasized.

Secondly, can a relevant quote from a clearly reliable source be removed if an editor says "it isn't true"? I believe we should show both sides of a controversy rather than just delete

Opening comments by North8000

The opening statement is a complete mis-representation of the situation. Ironically, I think that everybody already agrees on the answer to the question that is defined as the "Crux of the dispute" and in fact such is already implemented in the article The fallacy is pretending that it hasn't, and pretending that the "law" during that period is what GreekParadise wishes it was rather than what it actually was. If there is some evidence that there would be a genuine discussion of the question, (including a more factual and specific rewrite of the opening statement and dispute) I would participate. Otherwise not. There is a long list of things that GreekParadise has done at eh article and talk page that are badly out of line, to put it mildly; Grahamboat's, SMP0328's & Gaijin42's comments are accurate. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Grahamboat

GreekParadise’s opening is full of half-facts. He claims half of contributors support his views when in fact, since March, he is the only one pushing a dispute – we reached a consensus on this issue back in March 2013. He failed to include many active editors in this dispute. GreekPardise is trying to synthesize that the 2A only protected a firearm right in conjunction with a militia from 1939 to 2008. He wants to use the scant number of lower court cases to prove his point. The problem with that strategy is none of those cases dealt with individual vs collective firearms rights but rather they dealt with restrictions on those rights. Even Miller did not deal with that issue. His latest example, United States v. Lewis, he wants to quote from a footnote dictum taken out of context in a case that had nothing to do with the 2A. His claim that the law of the land was dictated by these few cases does not hold water.

GreekParadise has been difficult to work with as he has vandalized the article HERE , accused his fellow editors being unscrupulous, charlatans, and pushing NRA-POV HERE . He dumps 10 K rants that are difficult to follow and turn out to be just rehashes of material already discussed. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus – I believe we have reached a consensus here. GP is the only one holding out. No matter what happens he is unlikely to agree with any of us and will probably reappear at a later time with a rehash of the same old: as he has in the past. I recommend we wait a few days for others to respond: then close the dr. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am declaring a de facto consensus. Thanks for your guidance TransportorMan. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SMP0328.

GreekParadise uses hyperbole and ad hominem attacks in an effort to intimidate editors in to allowing him to convert the article into being a reflection of his POV regarding the Second Amendment. I'm sure he can offer improvements to the article. A few months ago he wanted a reference to pre-Heller Court of Appeals decisions to be added to the article. A consensus was reached allowing for that addition via a reference to such decisions and a footnote containing citations to those decisions. After that, GreekParadise stopped communicating on the talk page. It appeared he was a member of the consensus. Now GreekParadise has returned with the same claims he originally brought. GreekParadise needs to stop attacking his fellow editors and stop asking for what basically is a total rewrite of the article. This article, like every Wikipedia article, is capable of improvement, but this article is not in violation of NPOV. Suggesting otherwise is an exaggeration, no way to obtain consensus, and wrongly accuses editors of bad faith. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SaltyBoatr

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

The article suffers from many problems, including lack of neutrality, original research, errors and over-reliance on primary sources.

While it is true that a majority decision by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is binding on US courts on how any law is interpreted, and belongs in the article, our reporting of the opinions on the amendment should be governed by WP:WEIGHT, i.e., providing proportionate weight to all views expressed in secondary sources. The judgment itself is a primary source and secondary sources are required to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in it.

Also, instead of summarizing case findings, we should use secondary sources that explain them. We are not supposed to base articles on primary sources and Wikipedia editors lack the expertise to analyze judges' comments.

The approach taken leads to OR. For example Blackstone's 18th century legal text is cited as saying the right to bear arms was an auxiliary right, supporting the natural right to self-defense. This gives the false impression that natural rights theory played a role in DC v. Heller, when in fact the CJ who wrote the majority opinion rejects the existence of natural rights.

While DR should only be used after other attempts to resolve issues have been taken, many issues have been taken to other fora. However, the differences of opinion cover so many aspects of the article, that use of any other forum is likely to fail, since they are more appropriate for more narrowly defined disputes.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gaijin42

The high level content that Greek wants is already in the article. We are more than open to addressing specific concerns, or additions, but he comes in and posts 10k rants and basically saying the entire article needs to be wiped out because he doesn't agree with it. The supreme court spoke. It said what the law is. It clarified its own 60 year old ambiguous ruling. It further said that that is ALWAYS what the law has been. Lower courts previously disagreed on what the 60 year old ruling meant. They were retroactively made wrong by the supreme court decision. We discuss them. We can possibly discuss them more, but content should be added with a paintbrush, not a dumptruck. And anything added needs to be in the context that if it was written pre-heller, whatever that source might say is objectively, absolutely wrong (insofar as it disagrees with heller). If it is written post heller, but wants to discuss things pre-heller - then and discuss them in the context of how miller was previously interpreted by lower courts - then we should discuss that.

Multiple multiple multiple academic and other reliable sources of all political stripes say that miller was ambiguous. The supreme court has stated TWICE that the miller decision did not rule on collective individual rights. Lower courts interpreted it to be collective. Sure. Then scotus said they were wrong. We have the history in the article already, but GP insists on reformulating the entire article to fit his POV, which is directly contrary to the rulings of SCOTUS, and all up-to-date reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As requested by transporter, I have re-notified all participants that this DR is re-opened. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Consensus : I think there is consensus (with the notable exception of GP) that the Miller->Heller "collective viewpoint" period is real, but already sufficiently covered in the article. Many would be open to tweaks to wording or an additional detail here or there, but there is also strong consensus against a major reformulation of the article to emphasize this viewpoint or section of time. GP is essentially trying to argue that Heller is wrongly decided based on historical evidence X. In 20 years, maybe SCOTUS will prove him correct, but in the meantime SCOTUS has ruled, quite explicitly and unambiguously, and in a way that specifically addressed GPs assertions that Miller did not say what GP says it does. Further, Heller, its meaning, and the issue of how that affects Miller have been widely covered in reliable sources. However, I think going through the DR motions would be valuable if only to give GP one more vent, and the consensus one more piece of proof that we allowed him to make his argument, and that consensus is not in agreement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Inijones

Opening comments by Kvng

I've actually not been following this for several months now (and I'm happier for it) but I've gone back and reviewed changes since I left and I think the article has definitely been improved. I sort of agree with User:North8000 that the complaints don't seem to match the state of the article. ~KvnG 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No comment on consensus question. Way too much talk page chatter to wade through for me to make an assessment. ~KvnG 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Wzrd1

I had my input in the past archive of the talk page, where I did go on at some length regarding the history and practice of law in the US regarding the right to keep and bear arms, as well as explaining who the militia was and remains. Noteworthy in GreekParadise (talk · contribs)'s dispute is in the opening of the dispute comment: "From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right." Many, many rights were considered not applicable to the populace during that era, including every enumerated right. Indeed, the states were considered to possess all of those rights. On the face of that absurdity, the courts finally recognized the intent of many of the enumerated rights, as it most certainly is nonsensical that a state has the right to be free of warrantless search of its home and papers! The same is true of the remainder of the enumerated rights, which were designed to be reinforcing that which already existed, but were on occasion curtailed by the Crown over the centuries. One considers that the Constitution was not ratified in 1939, but was ratified and came into effect on March 4, 1789! In all of that time, men over the militia age still were permitted to possess and retain possession of firearms. It has only been since Heller that revisionist historians seek to change that which Scalia, for a rare change, got correct. That the second amendment was for all citizens of the land, not only the militia, which was and still remains every able bodied male between 18-45 and prior active duty military to age 60.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't purely one of consensus. There have been multiple RfC's that arrived at consensus only to be challenged a month later. At this point, it's become a dispute that needs resolution.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 10stone5

This dispute has reached a point far beyond where it should have been resolved. I had thought an RfC had already resolved this dispute, ongoing since at least March 2013. The RfC process seemed to me the most likely and useful process to address the above user's concerns. However, The problems inherent in the above cited dispute remain:

• The central problem, the above user is looking to invalidate DC v Heller. That's hard to justify within any Wikipedia guidelines, that is support for original Constitutional interpretation to be included in Wikipedia articles divorced from existing constitutional case law.
• The original dispute concerned citing the 2nd Amendment as a collective right in the introduction, the DC v Heller opinion notwithstanding. Again, an RfC resolved this dispute, whereby instead of citing any collective rights in the intro, the 'Notes' section was used to provide an area to address this concern. Unfortunately, there was not a good faith adherence to the Wiki RfC process by the above user, who subsequently opened a DR. So the obvious question, What happens if we go through with the DR, the findings are the same or similar, and the above user still does not accept the Wiki finding?
• Neither Plessy v Ferguson nor Brown v Board of Education seem to be reasonable comparables to DC v Heller. The user suggests following a similar article template in citing prior case law. Brown v Board resolved the 'separate but equal' issue already present in the Constitution, problems which were not resolved when the original Constitution was ratified. DC v Heller was different in that it spelled out rights already inherent in the original writing of the 2nd. The ruling did not resolve any issues left unresolved from the original ratification of the Constitution. 10stone5 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

• ' Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC) '

>> No, unfortunately this DR is not on the question of consensus, but rather a long running dispute which has been through a number of Wiki resolution processes, and where at this point, DR seemed like the last remaining option in order to close out the dispute. <moved comment, I had misplaced this under user, Miguel Escopeta + addition> re: Consensus, this had been reached, I felt, with a preceding RfC. 10stone5 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Miguel Escopeta

This dispute is essentially a non-dispute, save for one editor's viewpoint which was overruled in a previous DR. The problem is that the SCOTUS spoke in the landmark case Heller, and one editor still refuses to accept the outcome. Prior to this landmark SCOTUS ruling, there were no specific rulings from SCOTUS on the 2A, but there were an increasing number of lower court cases that were split. Hence, the need for the SCOTUS to rule in this landmark case, which it did. Trying to pretend that the law was other than what it was prior to Heller is a fool's errand. It is speculative, and WP is not a crystal ball. The article as it exists seems to address the history accurately and succinctly. Creating an alternative history does not seem worthwhile, nor would it meet WP standards. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I believe that a consensus has already been reached, in the prior DR. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by J8079

User GreekParadise does not know how wikipedia works. He comes here hoping to be declared the winner and force his edits into the lede. Using the talk pages as a forum is unacceptable, in spite of the history of the page. Edit waring and edits like this [[1]] are not tolerated. The consensus against the edits made by GreekParadise are documented. Ongoing consensus is building in spite of disruptions by the user. J8079s (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for general discussion at this point in time, but I do want to ask everyone a question. When there is only one editor who wants to do something and many who do not, the first question we have to ask here at DRN is whether consensus has already been reached. If consensus has already been reached, then a listing here should be closed because there is nothing to talk about and engaging in dispute resolution would be inappropriate. It sometimes happens, however, that despite the disparity in position that the more-numerous side doesn't feel settled about the matter and is not yet willing to declare consensus without further discussion or, and this is slightly different, does feel that there is probably a consensus but wants an evaluation by a neutral party. Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (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.

Gun Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gun Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)
• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs)
• Scalhotrod (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Justanonymous (talk · contribs)
• Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)
• Steeletrap (talk · contribs)
• Shadowjams (talk · contribs)
• ROG5728 (talk · contribs)
• Amadscientist (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

What is the appropriate inclusion for information regarding Nazi use of gun control in the gun control article (Or if the gun control is merged into gun politics/firearm regulations, inclusion in the target article)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Two RFCs closed no consensus, procedurally closed DR (1st RFC still open), reams of talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Keep the multiple arguments on track , and make sure each one is resolved individually, without shifting to another argument midstream. Arbitrate how the multiple policies involved interact and how they should apply to this content.

The topic is certainly highly controversial, but it is also very notable, and discussed in many reliable sources. It is a major part of the gun control debate in the US, and receives international attention . Opponents of the information may not declare by fiat that something is fringe, and violates npov, when npov specifically states that all notable viewpoints must be included, and that reliable sources are not required to be objective. this is not science, it is politics. The facts are indisputable (though the historical importance of those facts is questionable). The importance of those fats in the political debate is very controversial, but its notability is unquestionable. just saying that a significant political debate is not allowed in an article about politics is ludicrous.

Andy's procedural complaint is complete bullshit. The AN is a question about merging, not appropriateness of content (And the content also exists in the article he has repeatedly said should be merged to, so the question applies there as well). He also specifically complains in the AN thread that I have not opened any dispute resolution processes, and then attempts to beurcratically short circruit the requested action! There is the bad faith. [[2]]

Andy claims the GC article is a pov fork. He wants to redirect it to GP. THE GP ARTICLE HAS THE SAME CONTENT. So this dispute should be resolved one way or another, unless he says he does not object to that content in the GP article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I consider the opening of this discussion a bad-faith action. As has already been confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, there is a clear consensus that the gun control article is a POV fork, and thus a contravention of policy. Rather than addressing the issue, Gaijin (and one or two others) are rehashing the same arguments for the retention of material relating to a fringe theory only of any significance to the US gun debate, and completely refusing to acknowledge the WP:WEIGHT concerns involved in dominating what is supposed to be an article covering a global topic with a crackpot proposition (that 'gun control' leads to 'totalitarianism') that has no credibility whatsoever amongst serious historians. Given the endless stonewalling, attempts to rig the debate with a clearly non-neutral RfC and other failure to engage in a genuine discussion on how the article can be made to conform with policy, I see no reason to assume that this supposed 'dispute resolution' is anything other than a further act of stonewalling, carried out with the clear intent to maintain the policy-violating article for as long as possible. It should also be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gun control, which shows some potential at resolving the issue via a complete re-jig of the two articles we have giving global coverage of firearms regulation - which includes contributors not even mentioned as 'users involved'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Gaijin has chosen to characterise the opinions expressed by multiple uninvolved contributors at WP:AN - that the article is a POV-fork - as "complete bullshit". Given this contempt shown to fellow contributors, I can see no point in discussing this further. The article violates policy. Policy violations are not up for negotiation. If Gaijin is unwilling to work within policy, I'm sure we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I should perhaps wait for others to respond before confirming whether I see any point in participating, but given Gaijin's attempts to dismiss the opinions of uninvolved contributors as "bullshit", and given the attempts by another participant to stall any progress by initiating yet another thread (Talk:Gun control#Lets untangle the questions) where we are supposed to yet again go over exactly the same arguments - and apparently agree amongst ourselves to rewrite Wikipedia policy in the process - I cannot honestly say that I see the slightest prospect of this discussion resolving anything. The dispute isn't just about "Nazi's", it is about something more fundamental - whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that "the information regarding Nazi use of gun control" is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Where it belongs is the purpose of a separate discussion.

With regard to the topic of 'gun control in the United States', I believe that it is self-evident to be a distinct and notable topic either separate from or inclusive (as a major subsection) with the 'gun politics' articles (either in the U.S. or globally). My reasoning for this is the existence of firearm related legislation that has nothing to do with 'control'. One example I have been citing is this act which taxes firearm manufacture for the purpose of using the funds for wildlife habitat rehabilitation. As compared to, for example, this federal legislation.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO the main two problems there are: 1. Discussion is gridlocked due to failure to unbundle the questions. 2. Incendiary, insulting and nasty behavior by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. Both continuously tossing bombs and misstatements about other editors instead of discussing. Without those two issues I think this would have already been resolved. What few have noticed is that there are a whole lot of reasonable people there who are just trying to figure out the best thing to do and who appear positive towards some middle ground. DR would hopefully be organized enough to help on #1 and add some civilization to #2 and so I think it's a good idea. If the two mentioned persons would just look through their spit flinging they might notice that people (like myself) do not have the directly opposite positions as they have invented. Which is more good news for the possibilities of DR. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is the lack of respect of country-specific viewpoints. For example, one opening statement incorrectly states the dispute revolves around, "whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby". This is a total incorrect characterization of the dispute, as there is not a US gun lobby that is editing Wikipedia. Neither is the issue about "fringe" viewpoints. Rather, there is a fundamental difference of opinion in the amount of respect to be given to inalienable rights as recognized in the US Constitution vs. the viewpoint that rights do not come from God, but rather are privileges that only come from Governments or dictators. A fundamental dichotomy thus exists in viewpoints, and is at the heart of the problem of the dispute. Wikipedia articles should not be written to suppress different viewpoints, such as whether inalienable rights are granted by God to citizens, or whether subjects are only to be permitted certain privileges by kings and dictators. Address the suppression of properly cited and verifiable viewpoints, whatever they are, and respect the viewpoints of all major (non-fringe) cited facts, and the dispute largely goes away. The issue of content regarding Nazis vs. gun control is but one aspect of this overarching problem. Focusing on "Nazis" only clouds the real issue. Respect needs to be given to all significant viewpoints, provided supporting text is always properly cited with verifiable cites. We should not be suppressing viewpoints in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of gun control by Nazi Germany as a tool in their oppression of the Jews is a fact supported by numerous reliable sources and even quotes by Hitler himself. Whether or not some editors feel it's "unfair" to have gun control associated with Nazi Germany is irrelevant; the use of gun control by Nazi Germany is history and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

At the moment there is an open AN filing on this article and dispute. I will wait to make opening comments after it is decided whether or not to open this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The 1938 Nazi gun laws are as Gaijin42 says "discussed in many reliable sources." However as this example shows, they are mentioned as part of the "culture wars" in the United States as part of an irrational argument presented by gun enthusiasts. These enthusiasts in essence argue that the laws were an essential step for carrying out the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and that "liberal" gun control laws in the U.S. will inevitably lead to a fascist/communist dictatorship in the U.S. Experts obviously refute this interpretation. I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this, since opposition to gun control is a peculiarly American phenomenon.

Comprehensive books on the history of firearms laws throughout the world of course provide cursory mention of the laws as they chart the history of German firearms legislation from the Weimar Republic to modern Germany. None of them support the theory that the law helped Hitler consolidate power and mention that he actually loosened restrictions.

In conclusion, I think that in this article, the laws only have relevance to the US gun control debate and the gun enthusiasts' views can only be presented as fringe, if at all.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this listing for discussion at this time, but would ask for a clarification. Content dispute resolution through DRN or mediation is a voluntary process. Choosing not to participate is, therefore, not a disqualification from or impediment to continuing to participate in editing and discussing the matter for which dispute resolution is sought. The absence of a major participant in a dispute will ordinarily cause a request for DR in those two forums to be declined since a successful outcome is not likely without the participation of all major parties. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, I would ask: @AndyTheGrump: Does your procedural objection, above, mean that you are unwilling to participate in this process if that objection is determined in favor of continuation here? Such a determination is, in my opinion, very likely (though other DRN volunteers are free, of course, to disagree). Please answer in your opening statements section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened this case at the request of one of the participants and in accordance with the stated intent of DRN volunteer Guy Macon, but someone needs to undertake notifying all the listed participants that this has been reopened and, since some time has passed, also needs to give consideration to whether other participants have entered the frey or dropped out who need to be added to or dropped from the list of participants. While I am taking this administrative action, I am going to recuse myself from it other than for administrative and maintenance kinds of things due to my prior dealings with some of the participants. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we are working this out fairly calmly. Changes to other related articles seem to be paving the way, but I am unsure as to how this whole thing will unfold. Hopefully there will be no other polarizing events like another "Sandy Hook" that happen in the meantime. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (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

• 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Robertiki (talk · contribs)
• 81.240.132.34 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User 81.240.132.34 insists on excluding any other hypothesis, unwilling to wait at least the end of the trial. I accept all the information he as added, but require a "supposedly" at least at the beginning, to remember that there are still some doubts. I have also offered a link of a official document about that, but he deleted it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my personal page.

How do you think we can help?

Explaining what are the rules about controversial events.

Opening comments by 81.240.132.34

Roberiki is of the opinion (1) that the marines did not shoot at all (2) that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen (3) that the court case is underway and so we should wait till the end of the trial before linking the Italian VPD team to the two dead Indian fishermen.

My perspective has been clearly outlined in the TALK page of the article : (A) the VPD team fired at a fishing boat (which is undisputed because the Italian Defence Ministry said so in a communiqué released immediately after the incident). (B) It is a fact that forensic and ballistic analysis has linked the shrapnel, found in the dead bodies of the slain Indian fishermen on-board the St-Antony, to the ammunition and weapons issued to the VPD marines on-board the Enrica Lexie (which also no one can dispute because of the Alessandro Piroli report by Italian military investigators and also Indian police case-report filed in Indian courts).

To conclude, we can safely assume from all the authenticated investigation information freely available in the public-domain that there is overwhelming evidence that the Italian VPD team did open fire on a fishing boat and that the bullets did hit and kill 2 Indian fishermen on the St-Antony. The opening paragraph of the article says exactly this. No more and no less.

On a side-note, kindly also read what Roberiki says about the Italian Government and senior Ministers in his contribution on the TALK page of the Talk:2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea, it becomes clear that his sole intention is to disrupt the Wiki article just because he dislikes Italian politicians.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer at DRN. So, the problem here seems to be that this incident's trial is currently ongoing, and Robertiki wants the article to make it clear that the incident has not yet been proven in court, while 81.240.132.34 says that the evidence already presented in the trial is enough to remove the "supposed", right? Well it seems to me that the shooting itself is not in question: the marines did shoot two people. Only the motives and intentions are being questioned. That's how it looks to me, feel free to correct me if this is not the case. Howicus (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some open questions: the bullets appear to have hit the boat with a low trajectory, too low to come from the deck of a big ship, the bullets are common use, and about the tracers, it's the first time I read that you can use it to identify a shooter; in the past too many times, italian officials have changed their results, we still don't know what happened at Ustica 1980, or what happened with Amanda Knox, and it still it is not ended. And today read (translate with Google) http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/politica/articoli/1106200/caso-kazako-a-rischio-4-funzionari-del-viminale.shtml it's normal in Italy. So the italian marines have no one they can trust, the "reason of state" comes first. After all it is easier the Indians find an acceptable truth. Read http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf page 17 about the Olympic Flair. Link also deleted by 81.240.132.34. Too many doubts. And about seriousness: have we forgotten Mr.Berlusconi ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@talk Thanks for your time as a volunteer to look into this and give your opinion as an independant and neutral 3rd party. I concur 100% with your perspective.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please correct your statements. I *never* wrote that "the marines did not shoot at all, that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen". Be correct.--Robertiki (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Robertiki, why do you think that the word "supposed" should be in the article? Howicus (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

a) 'Cause Wikipedia is not' a newspaper http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper and that also means that there is no urgency to write facts (with or without consensus) "now".

b) Why 'what' Wikipedia writes affects jurors and judges (in the presumption that it is not a newspaper ...)

c) Why lawyers have no scruples to refer to Wikipedia as a consensus of experts ... when it suits them

d) Cause it violates the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia

e) Cause no voice raised to give the benefit of the doubt to the Italian military that have said they fired into the air and then in water.

Writing: "The Enrica Lexie Incident occurred on 15 February 2012 when Italian soldiers belonging to a Vessel Protection Detachment (VPD) team deployed on a privately owned oil tanker MT Enrica Lexie supposedly opened fire on a fishing boat." at least (and only) in the starting sentence serves to remember that all facts and verdicts are not definitive at this time. And I repeat: at least and only once, in the starting sentence. I have nothing to question about all the information that details the point of 81.240.132.34 and 91.182.239.46 in the full body of the article. The harshness with which one editor sistematically has canceled the insertion is reason alone, that says a lot why "supposedly" should be there, once, and only once, in the article. And I am skipping over the repeated threatening to report edit war to admins, with the roughness of a official. All started with the insertion of the word "supposedly" on 18:38, 13 July 2013 in article http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea. Someone is really working hard at Bruxelles. --Robertiki (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of using "supposedly" in the first sentence, another sentence could be added to make it clear that the trial is not yet decided? Howicus (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Could fit if it implies that the circumstantial evidence is not yet found conclusively by all parties. On 15 February 2012 two fishermen were shot from a trading vessel at the height of the city Alappuzha. After notification to the Indian Coast Guard, eligible cargo ships in the sea were invited to submit comments. Only the Enrica Lexie told of an incident: "The aboard stationed Italian Navy soldiers suspected on an approaching fishing boat Somali pirates and opened fire." On the same afternoon, another tanker present in the area, the Olympic Flair, reported a boarding attempt to the Kochi Port Authority, stating: "About 20 robbers in two boats approached the anchored tanker and attempted to board. The lookout crew noticed the robbers, raised the alarm and crew mustered. The robbers aborted the attack on seeing the crew's alertness and moved away http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf^[2]. So, you see, some unclear activity was going on in that area.--Robertiki (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the last phrase of the opening part of the article which already explicitly states that the case will go to trial after investigation by NIA is completed : "The Enrica Lexie case will go to trial in a Special Court in New Delhi set-up to deal exclusively with this incident."

The controversy surrounding MT Olympic Flair has already been discussed in detail (a few months ago on the TALK page of the article). It is pertinent to note that both Italian and Indian investigators (after the forensic and ballistic analysis) conclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the bodies of the dead India fishermen to the ammunition and rifle fingerprints issued to the Italian marines on MT Enrica Lexie. Furthermore, the Italian military investigation report states that the photographs taken by the marines shows a fishing boat with overwhelming similitude to the St-Antony.

The MT Olympic Flair hypothesis is propaganda coming out of a number of Italian 'right wing' neo-fascist parties (lead on by the folks at the SEENINSIDE.NET conspiracy website) who refuse to accept that overwhelming evidence links the Italian marines to the gunfire deaths on the St-Antony fishing vessel. This conspiracy theory has never been raised by the Italian Government at any point of time.

91.182.237.154 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand what "'right wing' neo-fascist parties" has to do here, but is the report coming from MT Oylimpic Flair correct/true ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Could one of the IP users please link to the sources that they feel justify the removal of the word "supposedly"? Thanks. Howicus (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Howicus

Original court transcript is available here [3]

A full list of Indian court documents is available on the article page at [4]

Court documents contain ample information which shows that

• (1) the VPD team onboard the Enrica Lexie provided a statement to Indian police that they DID SHOOT at a fishing vessel
• (2) the Indian police forensic analysis POSITIVELY CONCLUDED that the bullet fragments extracted from the bodies of the slain Indian fishermen MATCHED the rifle bore 'ballistic fingerprint' of arms issued to the VPD team on board the Enrica Lexie
• (3) the Italian military has independently confirmed that the photos of the fishing vessel involved in the incident have strong likelihood of being the Indian fishing vessel St-Antony.

At this stage, even the Italian Government accepts that the Italian marines shot at the fishing boat and that bullets from Enrica Lexie somehow killed the fishermen. The only thing that the Italian government contests in this entire episode is the question of JURISDICTION. Nothing else.

The Olympic Flair report to IMO mentions suspicious boats operating close to the Olympic Flair and appears to point to a SEPARATE incident which involves maritime thieves. The owners of the Olympic Flair have gone on record to state that they did not face any 'piracy' attack by armed pirates. The report [5] specifically does not talk of any shooting.

Therefore, IF for argument sake, we consider that the Olympic Flair was involved, THEN what explanation for the PLAIN FACT that bullets fired from weapons issued to the Enrica Lexie VPD team are found during FORENSIC & BALLISTIC analysis by Indian police and Italian military investigators in the bodies of the slain fishermen ?

This Olympic Flair hypothesis holds no water.

The word "supposedly" it therefore incongruent in the present context.

91.182.218.234 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, after reading the source here [6], I would have to agree that the word "supposedly" should not go in that place in the article. The head note in that document makes it clear that the shooting has been proven to have occurred in a court of law. Now, the trial is not over, and the article should reflect that, but whether or not the shooting happened is not in doubt. Putting "supposedly" where User:Robertiki suggests would confuse readers. Howicus (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

a) which words in the "keralaw" source make you agree that the word "supposedly" would be, my word, misleading ? b) which wording are you proposing to reflect that the trial is not over ? c) what do you think about "The methodology used by the Indians for the ballistic assessment was not adequate, ... Even though the Leika-built comparative microscopes they used were a little older but still no too far from the ones we use, they worked at a magnification level that was insufficient. It was too low to properly assess the microscopic features of the ammo and identify the weapon they were fired from. Moreover, the methodology that was used would be considered insufficient by Italian jurisprudence. In Italy, a ballistic comparative analysis is done by two experts, who document it photographically. In Kerala the test was conducted by a young girl, by herself and *without including any picture*.” [7]. d) about the Olympic Flair: I am not stating (and never done it) that from the greek ship someone has shot on the fishing boat. But I find that their report, if true, would suggest the presence of other armed people on boats. Armed people that could also have Nato bullet firearms. e) the only statement of a confession is from the indian police. I don't know if in India che police is deemed "neutral", but in Italy it has no privilege in the courts. Note: "Il Sole 24 Ore" is the leading financial newspaper and one of the most respected italian newspapers. --Robertiki (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Independent opinion on this dispute : I endorse the decision by Howicus to reject the inclusion of the word "supposedly" in the lead text of the article. Official Italian and Indian court and investigation documents have discarded many of the hypothesis raised by Robertiki as either implausible or erroneous.

It apprears that Robertiki keeps repeatedly raising various stray hypothesis that are doing the rounds on conspiracy websites.

The wikipedia article as it stands today correctly reflects the current understanding of the chain of events of Italian and Indian investigators and courts. It also specifically states that the Enrica Lexie incident is still under investigation and that the trial will begin in a Special Court in India.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I'd hardly call you "independent", seeing that you have made many edits to the shooting page. Howicus (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Howicus (talk) It is clear that I have been associated in editing this article a few months back and still follow the article quite keenly. I have not been involved in this specific dispute and therefore consider myself 'independant' to this specific instance of the dispute (just one among several occasions which repeat every few months where Italian IPs have vandalised this article page).

The only point worth noting in my comment is that I too find the word "supposedly" as being out of place in the view of the latest status of hte situation on this matter.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer Robertiki's question, the sentence that convinced me that "supposedly" should not be in the article at that place is the one that begins "Whether the Italian Marines on board the vessel who shot down two Indian fishermen". This indicates to me that the court is not answering the question of whether or not the Italian marines shot two fisherman, so "supposedly" should not go there. Also, it doesn't really matter that Italian ballistics analysis is done with stricter requirements, because the case is taking place in an Indian court. Howicus (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. The indian court has taken for granted the results of the Indian police ballistics analysis. If the Indian court jurisdiction was uncontested, that would be a argument. But there is a diplomatic row between the governments of Italy and India over legal jurisdiction. I should mention that the Enrica Lexie went voluntarily to Cochin Port. If it had put on his route, the question of jurisdiction would be empty. Now the Italian government has made ​​a mess, as already remembered, flickering as the Italian governments are used. But that is no reason to present the story from one side. Anyway, the article is now so biased, that the question of "supposedly" is now moot. I will check my information, to try to give some explicit examples of bias in the talk page of the article. Next, about [8]. Reference of what the Oylimpic Flair had observed could be relevant ? If Italian responsibility is confirmed, it could give the reason of such an excessive reaction.--Robertiki (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Robertiki Contrary to your affirmation, the IMO GISIS webpage submitted by the MT Olympic Flair [9] does not mention anywhere that the thieves/robbers were armed.

The Italian government has accepted (see Italian Defense & Foreign Ministers statements cited in the article) that the case go to a trial in India. Italy is no longer officially claiming exclusive 'flag-state' jurisdiction as done in the initial months following the incident. Furthermore, if and when the marines are returned to Italy under the prisoner exchange treaty, then the Govt of Italy has to (among other things) accept the verdict of the Indian courts is final and that there will be no appeal of the decision in Italy.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am asking you not to dispute with me here. Your statement the I had "affirmed" that: 1) Olympic Flair has seen thieves/robbers and 2) that they where armed, are both false: the words are not MINE! A "possibility" is no affirmation, and the repeated attribution of statements not mine is irritating. If you like, there is the article talk page. I will limit to reaffirm that the Italian government is doing a mess. Example: [10]. Italy should have a) promptly apologized (no matter what happened), b) pay compensation, c) bring back the six soldiers (ordering the Enrica Lexie to stay on course). If that had been done, today the question would be closed. I would give you ad explanation of what is the real story (if you are interested): the Italian Government has "made" the case to distract from the dire domestic economic situation. If you read the news, in Italy there is a growing anger, and the tone of accusation against italians is of no help. And the one to benefit are the 'right wing' neo-fascist parties.You are helping them. To Howicus, I would propose to purge the article of all the political sensible content or at least lower the tone ("privately armed security guards","did not fully follow IMO Best Management Practices (BMP)", "pre-maturely opened fire", "shrapnel(???) extracted from the corpses", "slain Indian fishermen", are only some of the bad examples) and freeze it for one year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can wait.--Robertiki (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to freeze the article. It's an evolving news story. Also, it's not really up to me to decide what content to "purge." That should be determined by consensus. Howicus (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I see the point and I'm not sure about the policy, guideline or essay on topic. Could be WP:NOTNEWS ? Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Wikipedia should also not to be written in a news style.--Robertiki (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Oh, I didn't know about that one...good idea, Wikishagnik. Howicus (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, together a paste of

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

at the beginning of the article to add a general warning. --Robertiki (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone still have issues with the page? I'll add the Current event template. Howicus (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: There's not been an edit here in six days and this case is long past the date on which it would have been automatically closed and archived if this had not been filed during our subpaging experiment. Unless someone makes a strong case for keeping this open, a volunteer will close this as "Stale or resolved" after 18:30 UTC on August 13 14, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Howicus edit suggestion has been reverted by Yellowdesk and the IP user are continuing edit warring and have already reverted another edit: I opened today a talk section asking explanations, but the user started with a comment on the contributor [11]. The IP users are unwilling to any compromise and very active. --Robertiki (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

With Robertiki's objection, I've extended the closing notice by 24 hours and left a note on Howicus' talk page asking for his thoughts on closing. Unless he weighs in for keeping it open, I think it should be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Yellowdesk reverted my edit because apparently the {{current}} template is not right in this instance. I don't think either side is willing to compromise, and the talk page discussion has turned into Robertiki and 90.42.252.79 accusing each other of personal attacks. Howicus (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in any 'personal attack' and am only responding to aggressiveness from Robertiki by pointing out his contradictory and disruptive attitude. Please read the talk page of the article and you will understand who is the user causing disruption and throwing around words such as LIAR, RACIST, etc.,

Robertiki earlier said some pretty outrageous and insulting things about Italy and Italians) and is now trying to portray himself as a 'victim' by attributing to others the allegations and insults that he initiated.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2013 (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.

17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gračanica monastery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WhiteWriter (talk · contribs)
• Dirifer (talk · contribs)
• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
• Sokac121 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user is trying to push Kosovo as a state party of UNESCO WHS, despite the official reference in UNESCO. As a compromise, i added a location, but users are reverting back state party in order to completely remove mentions of Serbia as state part from article. As Kosovo is disputed territory between Republic of Kosovo and Serbia, we should not deal with Kosovo as with other normal recognised states, like France or Germany. Also, Kosovo is NOT member of UNESCO, so adding that would be obvious misrepresentation. When (if) Kosovo become UN member, and UNESCO recognise and change that on their own site, we should do that here. Kosovo article and related ones are subject of WP:ARBMAC restrictions, and must not be edited in non-neutral manner.

I would just state that all other disputed entities on Wikipedia have state party as it is referenced by UNESCO official website, as THE one authority about WHS. Also, other whs sites in Kosovo have Serbia, as sources say, with mentions of direct location. We already have strong consensus on this manner, and it is Republic of Kosovo ≠ Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Again. Kosovo is disputed region, location of those monuments. Serbia is state party that nominated then, and that still maintain them, as those are part of Serbian Orthodox Church where after years of terror small Serbian population lives in a enclosed fortress-like territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Big talk page conversation, and a thread on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, in order to fix "Country" into "State party", in order to solve disputed locations problem like this one.

How do you think we can help?

We would need uninvolved editors to respond to this question:

Should we ignore UNESCO reference, fact that Kosovo is not member of UN and UNESCO, and fact that Kosovo is disputed entity, unrecognised by half of the world, and remove mentions of Serbia, despite consensus, official references, and fact that we already have location added in this article, or not?

Also, help would be to fix "Country" into "State party" on Infobox World Heritage Site.

Opening comments by Dirifer

Opening comments by Antidiskriminator

This dispute is not about Gračanica monastery but about Template:Infobox World Heritage Site which (naturally) uses UNESCO state classification which says that state party in case of World Heritage Sites on Kosovo is Serbia. I think that the template should be changed to include additional clarification which would follow the existing consensus to use Kosovo territory with a note. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sokac121

In infobox should specify the actual situation. Serbia does not have any influence on Kosovo. These areas are managed by the Kosovo police, on the border between Serbia and Kosovo is the border police. Serbian President Nikolic said: "Serbia will never lose Kosovo, but I am not the president in Priština. This is what hurts and what, unfortunately, is already difficult to change," We also have some neutral sources that explain the situation :1 Judah. The Serbs. Yale University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-300-15826-7., 2 Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo. p. 12., 3 http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/Gracanica-Monastery_72048f. Most readers would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo. In article several times mentions Kosovo (is a region in southeastern Europe.) and not mentions the Republic of Kosovo is very biased.----Sokac121 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority over the article or editors but I'll try my best to be an impartial mediator for the dispute. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can proceed. Until then, I'll ask that any further discussion remains on the relevant talk pages. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. @Dirifer:@Antidiskriminator:@Sokac121:, it would be most appreciated if you could write a little bit about how you see the dispute here so we can get started on resolving it :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since we've waited a week since this was filed and one party (@Dirifer:) doesn't appear to have had any on-wiki contribs since then I'll just go ahead and open this discussion. As far as I can tell, UNESCO doesn't recognise the Republic of Kosovo and lists the location of this monastery in Serbia. Depending on who you talk to (i.e. whether they recognise the Republic of Kosovo or not) this is either right or wrong. I'm assuming there is no dispute that the area of Kosovo is different from the Republic of Kosovo in such a way that you could claim that Kosovo is a territory within either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia depending on who you talk to. Now, UNESCO are the final authority on what is a UNESCO WH site, they list the monastery as being in Serbia, this should be reflected in the Infobox. However, reading it as black and white when a shade of grey is required is not really suitable. As such, I think a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo can be considered. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your proposed solution. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Sokac121:, what do you think about the proposed resolution? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with proposed solution, that in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not proposed solution. What is proposed is

• "a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing" - not both
• "but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo" - mentions, like within a note.

Is it correct Steven Zhang? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the intention of my original proposal. The current version of the page is an example of this. It mentions that it is in Serbia as defined by UNESCO and the location is described as Kosovo. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with it until UNESCO classification changes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides sources UNESCO, we have another source that gives the real situation. I'm against that, Republic of Kosovo is mentioned at the bottom of article. It's pathetic and biased. --Sokac121 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites, it's their thing. As much as we may know it's not as simple as just saying Serbia or Republic of Kosovo, the UNESCO listing states Serbia so we use that. We can add a note (like the version I linked yesterday) which shows that it is in the region of Kosovo. If we start saying this like "They said X but they actually mean Y, we know it" then we're getting close to WP:SYNTH. Now there's nothing stopping the article going into a little detail about Serbia/RoK but for the UNESCO Infobox, Serbia should be listed. Thoughts? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites. Maybe their classification is indeed "pathetic and biased" but until they change it Serbia should be listed as a state with clarification that site in question (Gračanica) is in the region of Kosovo with added note about its disputed status by RoK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newsletter of UNESCO and Republic of Serbia. @Bobrayner: here is well written Talk:Gračanica_monastery Serbia may well be the "state party", but in the article that displays as "country". Most readers will interpret that to mean location. Whilst it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party, that is deeply misleading to readers as most would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo.. We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia--Sokac121 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party". The comment about misleading of the readers was written when previous version of this article did not clarify Kosovo dispute. The clarification about Kosovo being disputed by RoK is enough to prevent any misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And, Sokac, lets play honest. Your agenda here was not to fix possible misleading, but to push pro-Albanian propaganda about Republic of Kosovo. I would just mention for other users that we should not invent some new clarifications about Kosovo status, but we should use {{kosovo-note}} for that, as we are doing it in current version of article, and in other thousands of articles. If you ask me, this is closed question. Other users disbanded the discussion, and i will send evidences that Dirifer is DE sockupuppet by master puppeteer. Therefor, his attitude should be ignored anyway... But i think he will not pop up anymore, after recognition. Anyway, this is not question for this venue. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I again repeat: We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia. If I go to visit monastery of Gračanica monastery, I go to the Republic of Kosovo, I cross state border between Serbia and R. Kosovo, there patrolling Kosovo police no Serbian police. Wikipedia reader from Brazil, Canada, Japan who does not know clear situation on the Balkans will have the wrong information. WhiteWriter about your problem with Dirifer discuss to other pages thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Last time I was there Gracanica was patrolled by Swedish UN troops, and the Kosovo police was not welcome there. It does not matter though.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Around Swedish UN troops is Kosovo police :)--Sokac121 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So where are we on this? earlier I proposed using the UNESCO listing and noting the disputed territory. Am I correct in saying it is only Sokac121 that disagrees with this proposal? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, it's obvious that some editors have a personal connection with the Serbia/Kosovo dispute, I'd suggest all editors take a read of WP:TIGER, it's a great essay and pertinant to a lot of disputes on Wikipedia Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am satisfied the current appearance article.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The current appearance does not resolve this issue. It does not mention state party. How can you agree with it although you said that you support the solution that " in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo"? Have you actually read WP:TIGER?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Antid addition. That would be it, if you ask me... I also added other designation of this object, as in other articles... --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403 you can conclude this discussion. I'm pleased appearance article, but I'm not satisfied with these actions [12] during a debate in DNR they edit article. Thanks for your help in the discussion!--Sokac121 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

While it's polite not to edit the article during an active DRN dispute it's not manditory as this is a voluntary process. If everyone is happy, I'll close the dispute. If I don't here within 48 hours I'll assume everyone is and close it Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 06:46, 12 August 2013 (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

• Ferenc Szaniszló (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs)
• Koertefa (talk · contribs)
• Ltbuni (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ferenc Szaniszló is a well-known Hungarian TV figure who made international headlines, in March of this year, after receiving and then returning Hungary's prestigious Táncsics prize for journalism. Criticism of the Orban government's award was intense because Szaniszló is known for his anti-semitic and anti-Roma comments on national television. The page and talk page has been disputed since the event and the creation of Szaniszló's page, because I feel that, in keeping with international press coverage, the political context of Szaniszló's award should be described. This means, following international press commentary, mentioning two other far-right figures who received concurrent awards. It also means, following international press commentary, describing the Orban-Fidesz government's reason for giving the award to Szaniszló.

Other editors object to "an effort again to mix Fidesz with Jobbik," "negative propaganda towards hungarian events," a "political witch hunt," and have argued that this material should not be included on the basis of these wikipedia policies: WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Overall, users involved have attempted to resolve the conflict on the talk page by analyzing or presenting sources, by citing and reviewing policies, through two RfCs, and by proposed compromises.

How do you think we can help?

I think that dispute resolution from experienced and uninvolved editors may help resolve what the appropriate scope and content of this article can be, based upon available or already cited international press coverage, and upon the policies cited by other editors. In my view, this would involve 1) establishing what an article based on international press coverage would look like, and 2) an agreement regarding the nature of WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

This is only a biographical article, and not a publication about the situation of Romani people in Hungary. And I have to say it is also not a collection of news. For example Joelle Stolz, a political journalist is not a reliable source for discussion of the situation in Hungary, and these articles are filled with factual errors. Moreover, I don't know Szaniszló and Petrás how they relate each other? The latter figure received a completely different award. Furthermore the Táncsics award is not a state prize.

The current article is disproportionate and in many cases is different from the subject (namely Szaniszló). Petrás, Bakay, alleged discrimination... are totally different things. In recent months several articles were created in the purpose of discrediting campaign and propaganda against Hungary. There is no better evidence than that Darouet deleted info from the lead which explained why Szaniszló was awarded the prize. However, the political comment by the misinformed "journalists" and MSZP (oppoisition party, so clearly political opinion) member Nyakó in the article is treated as fact. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Darouet, for launching a dispute resolution case. I hope we will get some fresh, neutral comments. In my opinion, Ferenc Szaniszló was certainly a *lesser-known* figure (working at a smaller private channel) until his award, and he became "famous" mostly because of the criticisms. Since, his award and the criticisms of his award were mainly the ones which made him temporary (in)famous, I am totally fine with including some national and international criticisms of his award, including theories according to which his award was a political calculation seeking "the applause of the extreme right" and I could even accept general statements like "Orban government has courted far right voters since 2010". What I am not fine with is the mentioning of Janos Petras and the band Karpatia, whose only connection to Ferenc Szaniszló is that they received (different) governmental awards in the same time. Even if some critics see some pattern in this (i.e., "courting far right voters"), this does not belong to an article about *Ferenc Szaniszló*. These might be mentioned in an article about Hungarian politics or the Fidesz government, but I do not see the point of citing them in a short biography about Ferenc Szaniszló. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding the Prof. and the Singer to the Article would totally give the impression to a foreigner, that the FIDESZ is extremist, antisemitic or it wants the voters of the Jobbik - even though in reality Fidesz has already got at least 68% of the seats in the Parliament - based only on the fact that 2 others were given prizes. Making such impression is always the tactics of the MSZP, it is pure politics.

I. As I've already written, others - including a famous Jewish scholar - were awarded. If our goal is to report on the event, and not smearing the govt, then if we add the above mentioned two, why don't we insert the Jewish professor as well? And why don't we write why the Prof. and the Singer were awarded? Prof. B. is not my favorite scientists, his current views on Jesus/Parthians etc are rubbish, but we have to admit, that he WAS a good archeologist, his publications on Kőszeg seem to be very professional, and the others as well.What is more he has published works in English:

• Scythian_Rattles_in_the_Carpathian_Basin
• Sacra Corona Hungariae. Edited by K. Bakay. Szombathely–Kőszeg 1994.
• The New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3: c.900–c.1024 21 - Hungary by Kornél Bakay pp. 536-552 Edited by: Timothy Reuter. 2000

Apart from his insane views on something, he was not a nobody, who only merited the award for his political position... Why do we arbitrarily pick up two or three, politically sensible sentences from him, to demonstrate the reason for his award? What if he was really a good scientist, and this is just a honorary award, before he dies? The article does not give anything of the other aspect of his life. It would be libel, if we did not specify his earlier works. Even those, who laugh at him, say that he was not as bad as he is now... http://www.tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=278638 http://kikicsoda.regeszet.org.hu/hu/node/219

II. I have never ever heard of Mr. Petrás... Is he a racist or not? I do not know - the only thing Mr. Darouet mentioned about him, was that his song is used as an anthem by the Jobbik. Is this his only characteristic?

So, that is why I thought it was soapboxing: because of the selective handling of the participants' data. We should not make impressions or feelings. We should give facts, as much as possible, and let the readers decide what really happened.

III. So, my proposal:The present state of the article is fine - it's not worth re-editing it, but if Mr. D. insists:

1. Separate article on the Singer and the Prof. or 2. Separate article on the reflections of the international press on the award-giving (highly doubtful, this would worth an article...) or 3. We can add that others were given prizes - not the same one, BTW - and that it gives the impression, that Fidesz wants to do something with Jobbik - but We should add, that it is the opinion of the opposition. At the very same time, We should add, that this or that accusation of the opposition is questioned by the govt. and we should cite the efforts of the govt fighting antisemitism or racism, or something. Otherwise we start an endless edit war. In this case, for example, I would extend the article with these:

http://www.boon.hu/hungary-govt-committed-to-fighting-anti-semitism-says-israeli-ambassador/2314533

http://www.eu2011.hu/developing-european-roma-policy

Some extra articles:

http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/49861228777/world-jewish-congress-president-apologizes-for-comments

The aim of the DCO policy is to deter abuse of the refugee system by people who come from countries generally considered safe. List of safe countries:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp

Please note that these are official gov't (Israel, Canada, Hungary, EU) documents and statements.

--Ltbuni (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The main question here is whether the article will assign weight according to what major international newspapers decided was important in their coverage of Ferenc Szaniszló, or whether other considerations will dictate what is included in the article. The international press very strongly linked the prize given to Ferenc Szaniszló with the prizes concurrently awarded to Kornél Bakay and János Petrás. They portrayed the awards given to these three people at the same time as part of a broader effort by the Fidesz government to court the far right. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page for Ferenc Szaniszló, with Darouet compiling a list of newspaper articles and noting what aspects of Ferenc Szaniszló's career and award were mentioned. A majority of the newspaper articles discussed the award in the context of the Orbán government and far-right politics.

The sources are clear on this point. The other side of the argument, being advanced by Norden, Ltbuni and Koertefa, is that this article is solely about Szaniszló, and that discussing the context of his award is inappropriate. Regardless of what the international press deems important about Szaniszló, they argue, Wikipedia should omit mention of other people involved in the most notable event of Szaniszló's biography. If this argument is correct, it sets a very unreasonable constraint on what issues can be dealt with in biographical entries on Wikipedia. A biography can mention people other than the subject, if they are important to some aspect of that person's life. Who is important to Szaniszló's biography in this case? I think we should follow what reputable sources have decided to emphasize. That means that we should mention the concurrent prizes, just as the majority of international newspapers did when reporting on Szaniszló.

Leaving out this context only makes the article less informative and representative of the reliable sources we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mark and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am going to open the discussion while I take a closer look at the request. Please feel free to begin.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 09:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark for helpful us, and thank you Norden1990, Koertefa, Ltbuni and Thucydides411 for your comments.

My understanding of the views shared by Norden, Koertefa and Ltbuni is this: Janos Petras, Karpatia, and Bakay have nothing to do with Ferenc Szaniszló and shouldn't be mentioned in his biographical article.

According to my understanding, Norden1990 furthermore believes that the Romani shouldn't be described as "persecuted" here, that the article isn't balanced, that certain cited sources aren't reliable, and that the purpose of this and other Wikipedia articles is to discredit Hungary. Ltbuni believes that if Bakay and Petras were mentioned at all, many other and positive things could be said of them, and other awardees might also be mentioned (or other articles written).

My position, largely shared by Thucydides411, is that the relationship between Szaniszló, Bakay and Petras, constantly cited by international news journalists, is the effort by the Orban/Fidesz government to court the right wing in Hungary, also explicitly explained or implied by these journalists. We have furthermore argued, based upon the volume of coverage available, that the returned Táncsics prize should occupy the bulk of Szaniszló's page, and that its description should mirror, in condensed form, international coverage.

Thucydides argues that omission of Bakay, Petras or the political context of the award, even when described by reliable sources, would make the biographical articles of most people on Wikipedia incomplete, as they would be forced to remove all context, political or otherwise.

I would lastly argue that none of this constitutes propaganda against, or a discrediting of Hungary, and that many Hungarians opposed these awards.

-Darouet (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One last comment: I removed the lead statement attributing Szaniszló's award to his previous work in Yugoslavia and the USSR because this is not stated by international news sources. Those actually argue that he was given the award for political reasons. So we should discuss this issue too. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, this is a BLP issue. I ask editors to be prepared to understand our current policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Most important is presenting accurate and reliably sourced content. If the information is contentious, multiple reliable sources are expected. Information needs to be presented in a neutral manner. Content need not be flattering, may be controversial and even political if the sources are being summarized to reflect what the RS says and is notable enough to mention by a consensus of editors. As dispute resolution volunteers, part of our job, and perhaps even the most important part of our job is to weigh the strength of participants arguments as a dispute closer. Generally we try to get editors to collaborate on a compromise and as such I like to begin discussions by asking if there may be a compromise to this dispute that everyone can live with? Remember that compromise may mean that not everyone will be happy with the outcome. As long as an agreement is made that everyone can live with, the dispute can be resolved. Thoughts?--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'll reply shortly with my understanding of WP:BIO and how it pertains to this page as best I can. I'll also think about possible compromises that adhere to wikipedia policy and make this page the one it should be. -Darouet (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the WP:BIO policies again, my impression is that content must be 1) reliably sourced (and reflect due weight given by sources) (WP:BLPSOURCES), 2) remain neutral in tone (WP:BLPSTYLE), and 3) refrain from giving undue attention to those who don't warrant it (WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE).

Regarding tone, I want it to be neutral and don't believe a dispassionate account as given by newspapers would violate neutrality.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló's notoriety, he is described by reliable sources (see below) as a public figure, being a media presenter on Echo TV, which newspapers write is associated with the ruling government in Hungary. His job is to broadcast himself and his views on national television every day: I would think this is the definition of a public figure.

Because content from reliable sources is so critical, I'll leave a series of references below from most of continental Europe's largest newspapers, and from the New York Times, the BBC and Independent. The disputed and removed content - referencing Bakay and Petras - derives from these sources (except the Tagesspiegel). Original text and translations are provided when necessary:

1. The Independent, Hungarian government awards Tancsics prize for journalism to notorious anti-Semite Ferenc Szaniszlo, [13]:

2. BBC, Anger in Hungary at prize for 'anti-Semitic' reporter, [14]:

3. The New York Times, Politics Spills Onto Stage in Budapest, [15]:

4. Haaretz, Israel condemns award to Hungarian reporter it calls anti-Semitic, republished from Reuters, [16]:

5. Tagesschau (Germany), Antisemitischer TV-Moderator gibt Staatspreis zurück (Antisemitin TV moderater returns his state prize), [17]:

6. Die Zeit, Ungarns Regierung vergibt Orden an Antisemiten (Hungary's government gives medals to anti-semites, [18]:

7. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Regierung verleiht Orden an antisemitischen Journalisten, [19]:

8. Der Tagesspiegel, Ferenc Szaniszlo: Ungarn ehrt antisemitischen Journalisten (Ferenc Szaniszlo: Hungary honors anti-semitic journalist), [20]:

9. Le Figaro, Hongrie : Viktor Orban met l'extrême droite à l'honneur (Hungary: Orban honors the extreme right), [21]:

10. Le Monde, Prime au fascisme en Hongrie (Primed for fascism in Hungary), [22]:

11. la Repubblica, Orban decora tre razzisti antisemiti dall'Ungheria nuova sfida all'Europa (New challenge for Europe: Orban decorates three antisemites and racists in Hungary), [23]:

12. L'Independenza, Orban, il “nemico” ungherese creato dall’Unione Europea (Orban, the Hungarian enemy, created by the EU), [24]:

13. de Volkskrant, Hongaarse regering kent antisemieten prijzen toe (Hungarian government gives out anti-semitic prizes), [25]:

14. Novinky.cz, V Maďarsku vyznamenali antisemitského novináře i nacionalistickou kapelu (Hungary: the distinguished journalist and anti-Semitic band), [26]:

These articles, almost all of them about Szaniszlo and his award, all mention Bakay and Petras. Many of them also remark on the relation between Szaniszlo, Echo TV and Fidesz. So, reliable sources and due weight, based on available coverage, would suggest that this material should be included because it provides information both about Szaniszlo (his relationship to Fidesz) and his award (given alongside awards to Bakay and Petras). -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, on the issue of compromise, I'm happy with Koertefa's compromise of including statements about Fidesz's motivation for the award framed within the context of criticism by media or Fidesz opponents. I think that's a fair reflection of what sources say, overall. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we have a pretty good list, above, of reliable sources above all placing Bakay, Petras and Szaniszlo's names adjacent to one another (and one article titled "The distinguished journalist and antisemitic band"), is there still opposition to just repeating, in concise fashion, what all of the above sources write in more detail? -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any last comments about how Bakay and Petras might raise BLP issues other than reliably sourced content, clearly addressed above? -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (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.