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

• Bushmaster Firearms International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Zeamays (talk · contribs)
• BobbieCharlton (talk · contribs)
• MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs)
• ROG5728 (talk · contribs)
• Phiwum (talk · contribs)
• L0b0t (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Information about the use of a Bushmaster Firearms product in the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, was placed into the article. Certain editors deleted the reference to the shooting, which was then reverted and an edit war ensued.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A discussion was started on the Talk:Bushmaster Firearms International page, but the discussion was unproductive. The debate was repetitive. Those who wanted to delete the reference claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was not sufficiently notable. I provided arguments why it is notable. The two sides did not agree on this point.

How do you think we can help?

Protect the page against deletion of factual, relevant material; provide neutral third party arbitration.

Opening comments by BobbieCharlton

Opening comments by MatthewVanitas

I have a goodly amount of experience at WP:GUNS and general experience on the subject. My current take is that neither side is (as a body) behaving unduly admirably: overall one "pro-gun" side is pulling up clumsy ideological canards to avoid any mention of criminal usage of X brand/make of firearms, and one "anti-gun" side is using an extremely recent and (in the US particularly) emotionally volatile event to add substantive slant to coverage of a decades-old company that appears to infringe on WP:RECENTISM. It is extremely likely that media coverage of this brand-name is directing hits towards this article, so there is public interest in the Bushmaster brand immediately resulting from the alleged usage of a firearm of this brand in the Sandy Hook shooting. However, even setting aside the WP:GUNS#CU consensus, which I agree is solely internal to WP:G and not overarching, I'm not necessarily seeing signs of a long-term interest in the Sandy Hook incident as a significant factor in the history of Bushmaster Arms except potentially the recent news that the corporate holder may sell the company for liability reasons.

I fully agree that there are individual editors who have either mis-used WP:G#CU or have somewhat properly applied the non-binding WP:G#CU but evidenced totally inappropriate ideological bias on the firearms issue. However, I remain wary of WP:RECENTISM issues until such point as significant concrete (not WP:CRYSTAL) business/legal ramifications issue forth from the use of a Bushmaster Firearms Inc. product in the Sandy Hook shootings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have exceeded the character limit. Please trim you opening comment by at least 315 characters.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done MatthewVanitas (talk)

Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ROG5728

The addition being advocated by Zeamays doesn't seem to be in keeping with WP:NPOV, (edit by volunteer, striking out non policy link) WP:GUNS, WP:NOTABILITY, and arguably WP:OR. The shooting in Connecticut just happened a few days ago and I think it's far too early to say whether it will have any notable long term impact on Bushmaster as a manufacturer. This basically amounts to a trivia addition, and it slants the article in favor of anti-gun sentiments (mentioning mass murder in the lede of a gun manufacturer article is pretty ridiculous). We should wait it out and see what comes of this situation. If gun control legislation is passed as a result of this shooting, or Bushmaster shuts down as a result (or something major like that), then we should certainly mention it. As it currently stands, though, I don't think it deserves inclusion. ROG5728 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:GUNS is not a policy, or even an essay, but only a suggested manuel of style for pages under the scope of that project. It is of no relevance for citing as a basis to your argument. Volunteers, participants and univolved editors commenting may diregard any such citing of that as guideline. Please remember that local consensus cannot overide the broader consensus of the community.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by zeamays

Factual mention of the relevant Sandy Hood Murders are relevant & should be included in the article.

Various murders are mentioned in the respective Wp article on the murder weapon. The opponents bring up various irrelevant arguments. --Zeamays (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Phiwum

To be honest, I was a bit surprised to see I'm part of a dispute. I'm not particularly interested in gun rights and don't usually edit such articles, but it seems perfectly neutral to mention the fact that Bushmaster has been in the public discussion regarding the CT shootings. Much of the debate following the shootings has centered around the appropriateness of civilian ownership of so-called assault weapons and large capacity ammo drums or clips. Because it was a Bushmaster that was used, the question of whether this kind of rifle really is an assault weapon or not --- or at least the question of whether it's appropriate for civilians to own such weapons --- is a fairly essential topic for the manufacturer's WP entry.

I don't think that a reasonably neutral and factual comment that these topics are part of the debate started by this obviously notable event should be controversial in the least. To be honest, I came to the page initially because I wanted to learn about the rifle in question and whether it is reasonable to call it an assault weapon. (I still have no strong opinion, since I'm not sure on what counts as an "assault weapon", but at least I learned a bit more about the weapon and its maker.) Phiwum (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) COMMENT: As it turns out, my only edit to the page was to correct the number reported murdered in the school (twenty-six murdered at the school, not twenty-seven). I'm fairly uninvolved in this dispute. Phiwum (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by L0b0t

Bushmaster Firearms International discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Moxie Marlinspike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Borium23 (talk · contribs)
• Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A single user is repeatedly deleting the bulk of the article's content without communicating about what's going on. These actions have come up a few times in the article's talk page, and even though there is a consensus around the content in place, the user will randomly wait some interval before deleting it all again without communicating.

Attempts to open a dialog on this user's talk page result in the user deleting those opening comments without responding to them.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Communicating on the article's talk page, communicating on the user's talk page. No response.

How do you think we can help?

Guidance on the best way to avoid an edit war. Are there more productive ways to engage with an otherwise unresponsive user who will delete content at random intervals?

Opening comments by Johnny Squeaky

Moxie Marlinspike discussion

There haven't been any talk page comments in months; you should try to re-initiate conversation on the talk page. If the other user continues to make contentious edits without discussing them then you should take it to WP:ANI. Additionally, please do not edit war. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2012 (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:Jat people#THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SuperKaran (talk · contribs)
• ((User))

Dispute overview

I am slightly concerned about the Jatt article the user Akashasr, is disputing the user Sitush and his edits, which at least from a neutral perspective look unbalanced it seems there is some truth to what Akashasr is saying. I don't want to get involved into a fight between these two users this is why I have decided to use the resolution notice board my only concern is that it seems personal biases are getting in the way of a balanced and encyclopedic article. I think both users contribution need to be reviewed on Indian/Punjabi articles, especially Sitush's contribution, since I noticed on his talkpage he talks about removing Ram Swarup Joon references, a source which is academically accepted.

I want to see a balanced article free or personal baises.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none.

How do you think we can help?

just look into the issue and balance the article, I think just looking into it will help.

Opening comments by

Talk:Jat people#THIS_ARTICLE_NEEDS_TO_BE_UPDATED. discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trahelliven (talk · contribs)
• Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel[1] the location of the new state is described as 'IN ERETZ-ISRAEL'. In the first info box in the Article [Israeli Declaration of Independence], Number 57 gives his description of the purpose - 'Purpose Declare a Jewish state in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine[1] after its expiration.' Number 57 has given a contemporary article (15 May 1948) in the New York Times [2] as a reference for the ‘Purpose’, When I asked Number 57 for 'the exact proposition for which the NYT was the reference or RS', he gave an answer in his edit of 22:57, 15 December 2012. I consider that answer unhelpful. If the purpose of the Declaration of 14 May 1948 was limited to parts of the British Mandate for Palestine, presumably the new state was content as late as 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by Resolution 181(II) of 29 November. 1947[3]. On the other hand, if the Purpose of the Declaration was limited only by the boundaries of Eretz-Israel (Land of Israel)[4], presumably the new state was not content, even as early as the moment of its birth on 14 May 1948 with the boundaries allocated for the Jewish state by the Resolution. When Israel first made the decision on the limits of its possible future boundaries, is critical in apportioning blame for the start of the conflict. My view is that the ‘Purpose’ should refer to Eretz-Israel, the term used in critical parts of the Declaration of 14 May 1948.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An enormous number of edits have been to the Talk page with no help of resolution in sight. Can you persuade Number 57 to refrain from abuse? Number 57 has not answered my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference. ‘Palestine’ (used in the article) in any event, is not the best translation of Eretz-Israel; ‘Land of Israel’ (the Old Testament term) is better.

How do you think we can help?

By helping to see if a compromise can be reached. Persuading Number 57 not to be abusive. By getting Number 57 to answer my question on the exact proposition allegedly supported by the NYT reference.

Opening comments by Number 57

I have tried to explain to Trahelliven several times that the common name of the state in which Israel was declared independence should be used (at the time the phrase in question was written, the article was located at British Mandate for Palestine. Since then it has been moved to Mandatory Palestine, and I have suggested rewording to reflect this, but Trahelliven has rejected), as opposed to duplicating the declaration, which is both ambiguous and not using the common term.

After making clear my opposition to his suggested edits and pointing out the flaws of using "Eretz Israel", Travelliven then demanded a reliable source to state that Israel was declared in Mandatory Palestine. I found the NYT reference, which states that Israeli independence was declared in Palestine. However, Trahelliven refuses to accept that the Palestine referred to in this article is the same thing as Mandatory Palestine, despite the other editor in the discussion agreeing. To me, this is similar to someone claiming that a modern day news item about China is not a reliable source unless it states "People's Republic of China". Trahelliven's attitide to the NYT source suggests to me that he is deliberately seeking to avoid acknowledging it to be correct, as this means there is no ground for his preferred use of "Eretz Israel".

If further sources are required, the Times on 15 May 1948 states "President Truman late today formally proclaimed the recognition of the new Jewish state, acting a few minutes after its proclamation in Palestine" (this is an online source I have access to through my local library). I think it should be fairly clear to anyone that "Palestine" here is being used as shorthand for Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by No More Mr Nice Guy

I really don't have much to add to #57's statement. It's not like the text is in any way contentious or there's some kind of disagreement amongst historians about this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence discussion

Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't mean my opinion carries any more weight than anyone elses but I'll do my best to try broker a resolution to this dispute as an independent individual. Once all parties have posted their opening statements we can begin the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed one of the usernames was incorrect but the submitting editor has informed them manually. I've altered the names in this dispute to reflect the correct username. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Number 57

1) The MFA English translation of the Declaration of 14 May 1948[5], uses the term Eretz-Israel....HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL. Eretz-Israel, literally translated as Land of Israel). is a rendition in Roman script of the original Hebrew אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration clearly indicate that Eretz-Israel was used in the Old Testament sense. This may, or may not, include areas outside the area of the British Mandate, depending on which book of the Old Testament you read.

2) The relevent text in the NYT article of 15 May 1948[6] reads:-

We hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called Israel,...

The writer of the article used Palestine as a rough translation of the original Hebrew אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

3) The NYT article may be a Reliable Source of the making of the Declaration of 14 May 1948, but not of the accuracy of the translation of the Hebrew.

4) There is no basis for using the phrase in parts of the British Mandate for Palestine instead of Eretz-Israel. At the very least, I am entitled to insert a citation needed tag to dispute the reference as a Reliable Source. Trahelliven (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page, you efforts at inserting a citation needed tag are clearly intended to be disruptive as you cannot get your preferred "Eretz Israel" into the article. Whilst the declaration may make reference to Eretz Israel (and you conveniently omit the fact that another part of the declaration clearly indicates that Eretz Israel refers to the Mandate area), the state was declared in Mandatory Palestine. Your claims about what the writer did in point 2 are clearly original research. And for the nth time, please learn to indent your discussions correctly - you make it so difficult to follow discussions. Number 57 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Trahelliven, may I request that you indent your discussion as WP:TPYES, it makes things easier to follow. I had some difficulty following the discussion on the talk page and I would appreciate it.

Number 57, can you link or quote the following: another part of the declaration clearly indicates that Eretz Israel refers to the Mandate area -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the talk page discussion, but the declaration states "On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel;" This refers to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which is specifically for the British Mandate area. But frankly I consider this a minor and largely irrelevant sidetrack. The main issue is that the text of the article should refer to the common name of the territory in question, and this is Mandatory Palestine. Eretz Israel is used in the declaration as this was the Jewish community's preferred name for the territory. The NYT article refers to it instead as Palestine, as this (as shorthand for Mandatory Palestine) was the common name at the time (however, Wikipedians have picked Mandatory Palestine as the contemporary common name). Number 57 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just so I'm clear:

• The declaration states In Eretz-Israel which coincided with the territory of Mandatory Palestine (by the way, I think the NYT calling it Palestine is a non-issue as many people refer to the United States of America as simply America or United States. In the context of the NYT article Palestine = Madatory Palestine).
• The dispute centres around the use of Eretz-Israel or Mandatory Palestine in the lead for the article, specifically this sentence: declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.

It seems that both are somewhat correct depending on how it's read. For example, if I declared independance within the United Kingdom both declared the establishment of an independent state in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and declared the establishment of an independent state in Great Britain would be correct. One (the first) refers to the creation of a state within the area of another state. The other refers to the creation of a state with in a geographical area which happens to mostly coincide with the territory of the main state in the area. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it is more important to state the territory/state in which independence was declared, rather than the generic region (which is actually probably still called Palestine, just not limited to the Mandate). The issue with using Eretz Israel is that it is an ambiguous term - it can refer either to Mandatory Palestine or to the generic region of Palestine. Number 57 13:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the article Land of Israel which is about Eretz-Israel (which, apparently should be Eretz Yisrael according to source 1 of that article) Eretz-Isreal is a "holy term, vague as far as the exact boundaries". According to this image [[7]] there are numerous interpretations of Eretz-Israel as an area. The declaration of indepenence obviously doesn't include territory in Syria but was aimed at the territory coinciding with Mandatory Palestine. Surely using "Mandatory Palestine" in the lead is appropriate then with mention to the fact that this resides within the biblical area of "Eretz-Israel" - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more important to state the territory/state in which independence was declared, rather than the generic region. In the present case, the phrase might have gone as follows: - in these parts of Mandatory Palestine set aside for the Jewish state by UNGA Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947. [8] However, by 14 May 1948, Jewish forces had already taken areas outside those allocated for the Jewish state, including Jaffa that very day. Further, followers of Revisionist Zionism hoped for a Jewish state that included part of the original Mandate east of the River Jordan. The vague term of Eretz-Israel was used deliberately. Trahelliven (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about what happened after the declaration, rather it is about the declaration itself. Additionally, I would say they declared it within Mandatory Palestine rather than the UN designated areas. The fact that Jewish forces occupied other areas is irrelevant to the declaration of independance it seems. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Once the Arabs had rejected the Plan of Partition, David Ben-Gurion took the view that it released the Jews from being bound by the boundaries set out in the resolution. At the very least that necessitates the removal of the phrase in parts of. According to the article, the Revisionists wanted a description that included the phrase within its historic borders. If the declaration was intended to restrict the boundaries to the area of the Mandate, it would have said so. To placate all sides, the vague term Eretz-Israel was used. Trahelliven (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It would still have been restricted to the area of Mandatory Palestine would it not? They couldn't declare an independent state in areas that coincide with Egypt, Syria or Jordan. Can I ask both parties to simply state how they would prefer the following sentence (which I use as it currently stands in the article): declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply, as suggested by yourself and agreed by No More Mr Nice Guy and myself, Mandatory Palestine should be used in place of Eretz Israel. This is the area in which the declaration was issued, and we should not be casting aspersions as to the territorial ambitions of Ben-Gurion et al. Number 57 09:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about obtaining the independence of a country, there is an assumption that the entity already existed in a legal sense with more or less defined boundaries; the country is just not independent. Thus Wars of Scottish Independence is a correct description of the conflict between 1286 and 1328.; what comprised Scotland was already more or less defined. What happened on 14 May 1948 was completely different. it was the establishment of Israel, which was being declared. In the precent circumstances there were no defined boundaries at all other than those set out in the partition plan. It is clear that by 14 May 1948 that the Jewish leadership considered itself not bound by those boundaries. In these cirmcustances, the Jewish leadership could declare the establishment of the new state without having to specify definite boundaries. If Mandatory Palestine is to be used in place of Eretz-Israel, should a Reliable Source be provided to justify the substition? Trahelliven (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out several times, the NYT (and other sources such as the Times) are reliable sources. Number 57 11:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement in the info box should read:-

Purpose: To declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel Trahelliven (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Question, two actually, are the words Eretz-Israel essential? Growing up I often heard that Jews wanted a homeland, and the location was never portrayed as important, but despite having the option of one in New York City wanted one in the middle east. Second, if they are essential, are they accurate, for example do Reliable Sources call it something else other than Eretz-Israel? For example, above it is called Eretz-Israel (Land of Israel), which suggests that land of Israel might work. Apteva (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the words are not essential at all. And reliable sources refer to the area as Palestine (shorthand for Mandatory Palestine). Eretz Israel is the Jewish community's preferred term for the area, whilst we should be using the common name. Number 57 20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One question at a time, then, as no to the first obviates (makes unnecessary) the second. In looking over other articles about statements of independence, a purpose statement is not usually needed, which would be a third option. What about Trahelliven and No More Mr Nice Guy, is the location essential? Apteva (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To state what the declaration said should be easy. You go the the key phrases in the declaration and repeat it verbatim. At most, you can literally translate it as in the Land of Israel. If the declaration had said in New York, to paraphrase it as in Manhattan or in New Amsterdam would alter the meaning. If the phrase in Eretz-Israel is a little vague, that may well have been the intention.

I agree that adding the concept of purpose over and above what was said raises more problems Trahelliven (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no distinction beteeen the Purpose of the declaration and the Making of the declaration, should not the wording be the same?

If there is a distinction beteeen the Purpose of the declaration and the Making of the declaration, under no circumstances can the NYT be RS. At best the NYT relates only to what was actually declared. Trahelliven (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, I refer you to WP:COMMONNAME. We should not be reciting the declaration verbatim, but rather use the common terms. In this case, Mandatory Palestine is the common name for the territory in which the declaration was made. Number 57 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Without being too pompous, this is the first time that you have ever referred me to WP:COMMONNAME.

The principles announced in WP:COMMONNAME make good common sense. Howevever, neither Palestine, nor Mandatory Palestine, is the common name for Eretz-Israel. The former two are political entities. Eretz-Israel has a religous connotation with indefinite boundaries. Trahelliven (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong - whilst it may have other meanings, Eretz Israel was also the Jewish community's name for Mandatory Palestine. Anyway, the terms in the declaration itself are irrelevant, what we should be saying is where the declaration took place, and that is Mandatory Palestine. Number 57 22:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

1) What is RS for the statement, Eretz-Israel was also the Jewish community's name for Mandatory Palestine?

2) The opening paragraph of the MFA translation[9] suggests that Eretz-Israel was used with the Old Testament meaning.

3) If the drafters of the declaration used Eretz-Israel in the sense you maintain, why did the MFA translaters not translate it as Mandatory Palestine. Trahelliven (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

1) That you are demanding a source for a well-known fact such as that suggests that either you do not actually have a clue about the subject matter, or that you are resorting to wikilawyering to avoid the argument being ended. Either way, I think it's a clear sign that you should stay away from this subject. If you seriously need a RS, try the UN (where EI is described as "the regular Hebrew name").

2) The declaration specifically says "THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL" - thus clearly not being used in the Old Testament meaning, but rather directly referring to the Mandate territory.

3) I can't believe you've made this point - I refer you to the last statement I made in which I pointed out that the Jewish community's name for the territory was Eretz Israel. I assume that's why they didn't use that name in the MFA translation.

Given point two, can we end this increasingly circular discussion? Number 57 22:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Eretz-Israel may be one of the official names of the Mandate. It does not follow that the Jewish community immediately stopped using it in the Biblical sense. I agree that the English translation THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL suggests that the term is used in the offiicial sense. Bearing in mind paragraph one of the declaration, how do we know in which sense, in Eretz-Israel is used in the key part of the declaration.

I concede that I may be at a slight disadvantage in not speaking or reading a word of Hebrew and that you may know more about the topic than I do, but 30 years of legal practice have given me a certain ability to understand legal documentation. It also taught me not to be abusive when involved in a discussion such as this. If I used the language you do, I would have been struck off thr roll years ago.

It might have been clear to the Jewish community that Eretz-Israel means Mandatory Palestine: it was not clear to me. Trahelliven (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's really much more I can say here, as I'd only be repeating what I've said several times already. However, inserting your preferred version of events into other articles whilst this discussion is still ongoing is very poor indeed. Number 57 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• A dispute of this nature is very complex, and because of ingrained opinions where compromise is unlikely, I would recommend that this be referred to Requests for Comment to gain wider community input. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is the first time that I have been on the page. What exactly is the next step to take?Trahelliven (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion sought. Trahelliven (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that on the Third opinion page. Not sure if you understand either venues. If you have an active dispute in one venue you cannot have a dispute here. I am not closing because it also appears you don't understand that third opinion is for disputes between two editors. I will address this at third opinion as this venue started first and there are more than two disputants.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Transportationman beat me to it. Please remember in the future that you cannot use Third Opinion for an active dispute while using another dispute venue, cannot use it for disputes with more than two editors and that DR venues are not to be pitted against each other. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I broke the rules, but as Number 57 said, we are going around in circles. There is nothing more we can say. There are in fact only two editors. What is our next step? Trahelliven (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That might be part of the problem. This case lists three editors and there is no decline or removal that I can see. What happened to NomoreMrniceguy? Also, why are you looking for other venues when one has been suggested above by Steven?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't just close this. NMMNG, myself and apparently Cabe6403 are all in agrement about using Mandatory Palestine (at least this is the impression I get from the comment above - "The declaration of indepenence obviously doesn't include territory in Syria but was aimed at the territory coinciding with Mandatory Palestine."). Whilst Trahelliven is seemingly unwilling to accept it, we can't just keep going as he won't let it drop. Number 57 11:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC

I agree that we have exhausted the discussion on whether Eretz-Israel means Mandatory Palestine. Do you still agree with what you wrote earlier on in Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence?

Perhaps based on the above, we could reword it to say "Declare a Jewish state in Mandatory Palestine shortly before the expiration of the British Mandate"? Number 57 21:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC

We could agee on that. Trahelliven (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I still concur that this wording is appropriate. Number 57 22:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Article, Israeli Declaration of Independence amended as agreed. Happy Christmas!! 23:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk)

---

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

• Publishers Clearing House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bilbobag (talk · contribs)
• 64.131.157.155 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over the past 3 - 4 years, unsigned authors modify content that has been reviewed and/or edited by third parties, discussed on talk pages, and/or verified by multiple cites.

These changes typically A) delete any factual, though unflattering, but well documented comments, and/or B) attempt to add promotional information, and/or C) occur approximately 60 days prior to the first week of February, when PCH conducts its drawings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked to have user sign changes or discuss on talk page. When I've undone their changes I've explained reasons for the change

How do you think we can help?

Provide a third party opinion

Opening comments by

Publishers Clearing House discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:William Hill Sports Book of the Year#Blue.26yellow caption for table (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Green Cardamom (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Use of color in table caption.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to include a color caption to stylistically match the colors of the award logo at the top of the page. See here at the top of the table a blue strip. The Rambling Man doesn't want to use a color strip (which matches the color of the award logo), and also seems to object to even having a logo at all (which is standard for most award articles).

Opening comments by The Rambling Man

Still being discussed, not sure why this has been opened, happy Christmas all. Snowdogs are on me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you supposed to write comments in my section? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please say your position in the dispute, not the text you have wrote that could be said as "The dispute is still on the talk page". Your comment just isn't helpful. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Green Cardamom

@The Ramblin Man: Well, I did qualify that statement which you chopped off, you're sort of harping on it and taking it out of context unnecessarily. You seem to think the color banner is a "corporate branding" and that would make sense if I was a shill for the company but clearly I am not thus giving my background and interest in Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC) (derail nonsense)

@The Ramblin Man: you say above that discussion is "ongoing", but on the talk page you said you don't want to participate in the discussion, then later you said you will let others determine the results. Can you clarify where you stand? If I restore the color, are you going to revert it again? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man has now said "enjoy the dispute noticeboard, I won't be back there again"[10]. This is why I have resorted to this dispute noticeboard, TRM and I end up in revert battles or discussions that are borderline uncivil and unproductive. He calls my desire for the use of color "pathetic" and says he finds this conflict resolution "funny" and express no desire to partake in the process. What should I do, how can I resolve this dispute? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:William Hill_Sports_Book_of_the_Year#Blue.26yellow_caption_for_table discussion

Everyone please state their stance on the dispute here. Not replying to the others for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:58, 26 December 2012 (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

• Van Rensselaer (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JGVR (talk · contribs)
• Voceditenore (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor is insisting on putting too much information for a surname list on one hand and putting misleading un-cited information in other areas ... its demonstrated in edits and talk. We are dealing with a name that has been in North America since 1550s When the Van Rensselaers colonized all but just a few generations. Those generations did not procreate long. It is rare indeed but the entire family name is of American descent.... 100% no exceptions. The other editor is adding garbage about other family names and Finish and Belgian nonsense, it is getting hard to keep up with error correction. I am merely trying to keep an unbiased list with some background on the name and for some reason the other editor is insistent on bringing un-needed attention to the persons signature on the family crest placing a link that is likely already in his bio. For the moment I will let it go for the moment, but I will fix it later. Neither of us as far as I know had anything to do with this unbiased article that the other editor does seems to have little regard. Van_(Dutch)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

showing facts and citing edits

How do you think we can help?

I think by simply - not being me would be a great help (it ain't easy)

Opening comments by Voceditenore

I have no intention of participating here. I had already made it clear on Talk:Van Rensselaer (surname) that I have no intention whatsoever of editing this article again and why. Voceditenore (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Van Rensselaer_(surname) discussion

at this point i see the issue resolved But for the fact yet another person reverted my last correction back to whatever it was all I just cleaned up. If it can be reversed by someone so it does not rack up as edit war i will be satisfied thank you for your time JGVR (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2012 (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

• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wikipedia editor Muboshgu (talk · contribs) has been removing edits for their own opinion.

As a fan of the sports team, I edited the page to look more organized and include more relevant material seen here [11]

and the editor undid all 3 edits for the reasons of "fancruft," sources, and "non-notable rivalries," even though I provided sources and the information was clear and consistent with the rest of the page.

I noticed the editor was a fan of a rival team and may hold some bias. Wiki should be used by everyone, but in this case it is quite unfair to people who actually care about the page rather than someone who can intentionally remove beneficial edits and not get into trouble because of their editor status.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made edits of organizing rivals section into 3 parts and added more relevant material to support the statements. All edits were taken down because of a "lack of sources," I then added each source for everything said. All my edits were taken off again for new reasons of "Fancruft" and non-notable rivalries, yet the same rivalries stay on the page and the edits I made were all providing evidence for statements made about a rival, not fancruft.

How do you think we can help?

Ideally, the user should be notified that 3rd parties have reviewed the content removed, seen in the contrast edit here-> [12] If the 3rd parties believe that the user did remove the edits in a harmful manner instead of "following normal protocol" [13] then tell the user of his or her errors and suggest not editing rival pages

Opening comments by Muboshgu

I reverted additions of unsourced fancruft onto a page that is already a magnet for unsourced fancruft. The page should probably be locked to prevent IP editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To [User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]], I provided sources for each statement. Each statement in rivals section was necessary and not fancruft, for not providing evidence of a rivalry is to not provide sources for a statement. 2012 section was not necessary but much more happened than the acquisitions and the Angels win/loss record; its one of the most exciting years in recent history, yet how does 2008 have more info? Please fix this if your going to start editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.110.108 (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim discussion

Hi there, I volunteer here at DRN. That doesn't mean my opinions carry any more weight that anyone elses but I'll do my best to try broker a resolution to this dispute Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From reading the diffs I would have to agree that a lot of the content added and then removed is indeed WP:FANCRUFT. Furthermore, much of the content is poorly written, e.g. The two big acquisitions were said to be made by... While I commend the editor who added these as wanting to expand the information available about their team I would suggest that this level of information would be more appropriate on a dedicated wikia Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To Cabe and every other viewer of the dispute, the material was necessary and not fancruft for the reason that 2012 was a recent year in team history and a big year, and the rivalries are big for this team; to not have an explanation of them is like having a section for the team's history and not explaining how the team came to be. As it stands the rival section states there is a rivalry, then gives one sentence to possible reasons, instead of examples of where the rivalry stems, as was removed.

Another note is that the User removing necessary material from her rival team page did not follow wiki rules of "Normal Protocol," as it states, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it." :The user recently removed sections of the "Fan Appreciation" section that are found on any sports team Wikipedia page, such as 7th inning song and fan traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.110.108 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular editor here at DRN, like Cabe6403. Please note that the "Normal Protocol" that you are relying on is a suggested means of avoiding conflict, not an editing rule, and no editor is required to follow it. Though not the only way to resolve this kind of dispute, perhaps the first thing to do is to look at sourcing. I've not looked at the material, but rather than fight over whether or not the material is or is not fancruft, a lot of material which may be fancruft can be eliminated because it is unsourced or inadequately sourced. Wikipedia policy allows unsourced material to be deleted and says that it is a violation of policy to add it back in without providing sources. Sources must be "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia and sources which are not Wikipedia-defined reliable sources may also be removed. Once unreliable sources are removed, then the material may also be removed if the removal of the unreliable sources leaves the material unsourced. Policy says that the better and "best practices" way of doing all that is to, best, find reliable sources for the material if you can, rather than just removing it, or next best, ((fact)) or ((cn)) tag the material and leave it there for a few days to allow it to be reliably sourced, then remove it if sources are not provided. But is it acceptable under Wikipedia policy to just remove it and there is no room to complain if someone does that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(Passerby volunteer comment) - I've cleaned up the opening comment and deleted a bugged section. Revert anything that I deleted by accident that should be there. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on or should I close the thread? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:39, 28 December 2012 (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

• Van Rensselaer (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JGVR (talk · contribs)
• Kraxler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Familiarization with this article is imperative Van_(Dutch)#Collation_and_capitalisation to keep context. For some it is very confusing, and THAT in and of itself is the cause of this conflict. Kraxler is under the impression that when a mistake becomes so commonplace to the point that it even gets handed down for generations...what is proper is no longer a mistake. He holds a mistaken view that Dutch names in America no longer hold the small "v" spelling. This is only true when the surname is used as a standalone or at the beginning of a sentence. His notions have caused countless re-edits... so many it gets so frustrating that when a person tries fixing it and accidentally overlooks an improper cap it is seen as a sign of ignorance of the standard. This name was in North America 200 years before the American Revolution, so it was not subject to "Americanization" by immigration officials. Kraxler seems to think the proper resolution s to wipe out the entire article and replace it with the text from talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

encouraging the understanding of the article. tried informing that America no longer has immigration officials "Americanizing" names. tried explaining this name was in America 200 before the American Revolution.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to Kraxler that just because a mistake becomes so commonplace it gets handed down for generations does NOT mean 'proper no longer proper and proper does not count when you are in America' (that is not a quote it is a mindset)

Opening comments by Kraxler

Van Rensselaer (surname) discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Rather than engage in dialogue one user is cursing and making mass changes rather than on talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He wont respond.

How do you think we can help?

Simple research.

Opening comments by TheRedPenOfDoom

The article was a nest of BLP violations. After innumerable edit conflicts, I was stubbed the article, put an "Under construction " banner on it, left a message on the users talk page to stop creating edit conflicts for an hour. The user's ignoring of those messages and causing further edit conflicts and re-insertion of BLP violations led me to use four letter words, and i would again if he had continued. If the user expects instantaneous responses while someone is doing a major overhaul of a BLP article, they are in the wrong place. This can be speedily closed as I have no interest in attempting to resolve anything with this user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy close. I haven't done many edits on the article as it gets edited too fast for me as well. It was POV and violated BLP and a few other wp guidelines before TRPoD made it acceptable. The other editor has a 2 day block now for edit warring it. I have responded in the 12 other dispute forums on it, so I may as well 2c here. Admin may wish to rev-del the archives of the article and talk pages. Most is harmless but it would take forever to pick through and rev-del the violations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman discussion

• I agree with Canoe1967 (t c), we may as well close this out now -- the filing user is blocked for edit warring, so he can't participate here anyway. —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (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

• Ben-Jamin Newham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Backyard science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mr Man 1990 (talk · contribs)
• Harry the Dirty Dog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ben-Jamin Newhams' page keeps being deleted by the same person "Harry the Dirty Dog" I have supplied more than enough credits and references to qualify him as a "notable person" and "Harry the Dirty Dog" keeps romving the page saying he isn't worthy!… also Ben-Jamin's name keeps being removed from the "Personalities" section of the "Backyard Science" page… he co-starred in the show WITH Sophie Lowe and he has done more afterwards than she has… If Sophie Lowe has a page up, I believe it fair that Ben-jamin Newham should to!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried persistance (re-posting)… comprimise (posting different ways) and talking with the user to see why they are so butter against Ben-jamin.. now i just believe it is a personal attack on the up and coming celebrity Ben-Jamin.

How do you think we can help?

allow Ben-Jamins' page to remain up once i re-post it tomorrow morning and send "Harry the Dirty Dog" warning for abuse and unfairly moderating subjects he has no knowlage in.

Opening comments by Harry the Dirty Dog

This user has broken WP:3RR on Backyard Science. He insists on adding a non-notable actor whose article has now been deleted three times who has a bit-part in one episode, supported by IMDb, which he has been repeatedly told is a non-reliable source.

I nominated the article twice for speedy, and another editor once. A third editor took it to AfD but it was speedied instead. I did not delete the article as I am not an admin.

He has been reported for promotion. His threats to recreate the article including the the use of profanity ([14]), should be enough to see him blocked given that he has been amply warned. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ben-Jamin Newham, Backyard science discussion

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've looked at the debate and see a few things.

1. The filing editor has been warned multiple times about re-creating an article about the subject.
2. The filing editor has been blocked for 1 week for re-creating an article about the subject.
3. The article in question has been speedied and the AfD closed.

For all these reasons I intend to close this filing as "Dealt with externally" pending significant objections in 24 hours. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No reason not to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur as well. There are other, specific, forums — Deletion review and Articles for deletion — for deletion issues and DRN is not the proper place for them. Beyond that, all that's left here are conduct complaints and this is not the place for those, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:24, 31 December 2012 (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

• The Venus Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:The Venus Project (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (Clean Up Section)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

Users involved

• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• Robinpfox (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Earl King Jr. has an ANI past of disruptive behavior and reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph info, etc, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work after which he said, "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the encyclopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invent, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits, but that'd be suppressive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page. AN board.

How do you think we can help?

Identify if the removed information is on par with other articles (such as pages of reality TV shows, relatively unknown actors, various Apple/Bell/etc product pages) and encyclopedic, or promotional/doesn't improve the article and whether Earl King Jr. should be banned.

Opening comments by Earl King Jr.

Opening comments by Bobrayner

Opening comments by Robinpfox

The Venus Project

I will close this in 24 hours as the opening comment is about the editor Earl King Jr. and 2 more discussions you have opened on WP:AN (now moved to WP:ANI). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No reason to wait for 24 hors if an ANI exists now. One venue at a time.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the ANI thread is likely to be closed soon, with "no need for admin action" or "this is a content dispute, take it somewhere else". This DRN thread is probably a better place to discuss the issue (though the article talkpage might be better still). bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this dispute is happening at 3 seperate locations, (here, AN, and ANI). I see suggestions about wandering over to SPI to call the puppetry question, but if this DRN thread is going to remain open other forms of DR need to stop and effort focus here. Pending the other threads being closed, I intend to close this filing down as "Being resolved elsewhere". Not saying that this would be a perfect place to try and resolve the issue, but the scatter shot we have going on feels like Forum shopping. Hasteur (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was closing this but edit conflicted with you. Go for it!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2012 (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:List of indigenous peoples (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ubikwit (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Tritomex (talk · contribs)
• Evildoer187 (talk · contribs)
• Dailycare (talk · contribs)
• HaleakalAri (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute relates to including Palestinians on the list. Some editors have argued that Palestinians should be excluded if Jews are. The scope of the article was defined by RfC consensus 3/2012[15] as "the narrow, internationally recognized definition".

I asked Tritomex if he would concisely describe the relevance of genetics to the discussion[16]. He declined [17].

Tritomex then attacked me for referring to "Zionist colonialism", but sources making such references had been on the talk page before I had arrived.

Dailycare presented two more official UN publications that explicitly recognize Palestinians as indigenous.

Moxy made following statement, then backtracked when conforming RS were produced. As per all the other RcF on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indegenous body - so no change from the norm.

Moxy, with a slightly sycophantic tone, responds to Tritomex as follows [18]

Moxy[19] tells me “we're no experts", and declares that he is a geneticist and a musician, which I take to be an indirect admission of his incompetence to be working on the article in the first place.

Tritomex, Moxy, HaleakalAri and Evildoer187 together form a false counter-consensus to that shared by Dailycare and me in relation to the UN RS. They refuse to discuss or recognize RS, or misrepresent others' positions, which has made for a tautological discussion. They are not discussing in good faith, in my opinion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#List_of_indigenous_peoples

This RfC Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#RfC:_Should_the_Palestinians_be_included_on_the_list_on_the_basis_of_tacit_UN_recognition_since_at_least_2009.3F

This discussion of unreliable source presented by Evildoer187 Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Unreliable_source

How do you think we can help?

Clarify the scope of the article as being the "narrow, internationally recognized definition". Insist that editors adhere to WP:TPG, WP:NPA, WP:CIR, and WP:AGF. Experienced editors (some boasting "higher degrees") have consistently been evasive in discussing the facts presented in the sources, which is against policy. If that doesn't change, there is no point in presenting sources to discuss with them in the first place, so they must be made to adhere to relevant Talk page and other policies.

Opening comments by Moxy

Opening comments by Tritomex

Opening comments by Evildoer187

Did you.....just accuse us of conspiring against you? Really?

There is no "evasiveness" taking place, except perhaps by Ubikwit himself. He does not have adequate support or justification for his proposed revisions. Palestinians do not fall under the current criteria for inclusion, and there is no consensus in the UN or anywhere else that considers them to be an indigenous group. We've all explained this to him time and again, but he does not seem willing to accept it. The way I see it, this entire thing is just a ploy to keep this dispute going until he gets what he wants. I'm not playing ball.Evildoer187 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dailycare

Opening comments by HaleakalAri

List of indigenous peoples Talk page discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Veritas Aeterna (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

TheTimesAreAChanging and Veritas Aeterna disagree in the following areas:

1. Is the role of Henry Kissinger in the Chile coup d'état that led to the Pinochet regime accurately described in this section or not?

2. Which sources, those of TheTimesAreAChanging, or those of Veritas Aeterna are more reliable?

3. Does this section adhere to neutral point of view? TheTimesAreAChanging believes that the edits of Veritas Aeterna push a negative view of Kissinger's role; Veritas Aeterna believes that the current section pushes an overly positive view of Kissinger's role.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for a third party opinion. Ray says that my contribution should be shortened as the Chile intervention is less significant than other parts of the Kissinger biography. I agree the whole section should be much shorter, but then if my edits are left out it paints an underduly exculpatory view of Kissinger's actions.

How do you think we can help?

Please have one, or preferably more, experts on Chile and the Pinochet coup d'état review this area, especially those familiar with Kornbluh's work. Part of the dispute is that I believe other sources are either not familiar, or (if they are partisan), choose to ignore this work. More likely they are not familiar with this work, and its analysis of CIA, NSC, White House, FBI, and State Department declassified documents from the Chile Declassification Project. It is key evidence.

Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

Talk:Henry Kissinger#The Section on Kissinger's Role in Latin America discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Leveson Inquiry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Meerta (talk · contribs)
• Jimthing (talk · contribs)
• Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Leveson enquiry is a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. It took evidence over nine months, and last month a 2000 page report was published for part one. It is the largest event for the press in the UK since the war, and has ramifications well beyond the press. The report collated the evidence, commented, drew inferences and made recommendations. E.g. Sections of the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

The report contained a mistake concerning one of the founders of the Independent newspaper (i.e. Brett Straub - who did not found it), which may have come about by an assistant on the report relying on a Wikipedia that had been edited in bad faith. This was talked about in a humorous manner on a satirical news quiz programme. This now has a whole section to itself on a rather Leveson Inquiry spartan page. This seems out of proportion and similar types of addition had already been argued against in other Talk page sections.

Arguments are being ignored and consent and conclusions assumed and I have requested that certain comments about me be taken back. The tone is surprising in parts. There was a period of edit reverting, maybe warring, which may seems to be continuing.

The discussion in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

[Note 15/12/12: I have informed the editors by posting on the talk page, and am sure everyone currently involved has seen it but will happily post on their talk pages if that is considered necessary. Six have contributed on the talk page so far and I had only mentioned the most recent - it's absolutely right that AJHingston contribute.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerta (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

All the appropriate arguments have been made in the section often by more than one person.

How do you think we can help?

It might be helpful if one or more experienced Wiki editors with background knowledge of Leveson can read carefully through this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leveson_Inquiry#Brett_Straub (including sub-heading "Mentioned on Have I Got News for You", and now part of "Further info needed") and assess everything that has been said. There have already been four or five contributors to the discussion.

Opening comments by Paul MacDermott

I feel this should really be taken to WP:3O before coming here, but since the discussion is open now I'll add my thoughts. I originally raised the issue of whether to include a brief reference to the incorrect naming of Straub as a founder of The Independent in the Leveson report after seeing an item about it on the aforementioned quiz. I thought it possible someone might decide to add it so a discussion was needed, but had no strong feelings about its inclusion myself. Having seen the information added and removed by other users I became more involved in the talk page discussion, but have made minimal editing to the Straub section itself. I removed some unreferenced text and suggested sources should be added. 2 were subsequently provided, 1 of them from YouTube, which I removed per WP:YOUTUBE amid possible copyvio concerns. To me there seems to be a WP:UNDUE element to the section as it stands, although I'm not against the idea of a brief mention of Straub in an expanded version of the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by AJHingston

As I have been involved in the debate I should comment here. The issue seems to me to be how WP:UNDUE should be interpreted in the context of WP:NPOV as a whole when the topic has been the subject of widespread media debate, a report totalling almost 2000 pages and nearly 600 witness statements. The article has been recently (and I think reasonably) pruned, for example to remove the list of oral witnesses, many of whom are notable enough for a BLP. In some cases their evidence was a top news item. The inquiry and the issues raised have been the subject of very extensive media coverage. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all spoken about the recommendations and their differences are the subject of cross party talks. In this context, the inclusion in the report of an error from Wikipedia is of course something of great interest to Wikipedians but it is not seriously suggested to have any material significance nor do there appear to be other similar errors in the report. True it has been picked up on a popular satire show, but such shows have also referred to other aspects of the inquiry. They are tribute to the interest and importance of the subject but not included in the article. If the Brett Straub affair is to stand as now and be given due weight then the rest of the article will need to be enormously expanded to include the evidence of witnesses, the media coverage, the detailed recommendations of the inquiry, the discussions about implementation and the alternative proposals of the industry. Some of that may be desirable, but in total it will not lead to a good article. A good balanced article needs to be selective. --AJHingston (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimthing

Re. the Youtube video: it has fair use rights attributed to it, so whilst we do have WP:YOUTUBE we also have WP:ELNEVER (precisely "...or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use"), and anyway there is also another BBC cite given also, added when link was live. Re. the Straub section inclusion: I partially agree with AJHingston on his points that the article needs to be expanded upon to include much more missing detail, which it is sorely in need of, this would then negate the WP:UNDUE argument being raised here against this interesting detail. I did in fact raise the issue of missing detail in the page talk ("Further info needed?") which Meerta agreed with, but instead of adding anything to expand the page to therefore negate the UNDUE reasoning, instead they wasted more time opening this DR instead, running contradictory to the UNDUE issue they are suggesting by not expanding the article to negate it's prominence. To be honest I can't really believe this has been taken to a DR for it's inclusion, as whilst the inquiry/report is of a serious nature, this doesn't negate being able to have less serious points like this Straub incident too, as it forms a wider point of interest to the reader. Examples of this can be seen across site, including—but not exclusively—a great deal of articles with Trivia sections on them, listing such info for this very reason, so they are not mutually exclusive types of info.
[sidenote for reviewer: Meerta's comments on the Talk page discussion are missing time/date stamps next to the users sig (or no sig at all), so reliability of original comments made may have to be checked in the Talk page history.] Jimthing (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Leveson Inquiry

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I closed this because it appeared that the filing editor may have left Wikipedia and because no volunteer had yet addressed the case. I see that it has now been reopened by the filing editor, which is fine, but when a case has been open as long as this one and no one has addressed it it is frequently the case that there is no volunteer who cares to do so (and some may feel that for one reason or another that they should not take it because they are non-neutral). We will let it sit for another day or three to see if someone may choose to take it, but if they do not then I'll probably close it again as stale. I do not know if the bot will relist it in the case summary or not. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been re-listed. Thanks for clarifying. Please let me know where to take it next if no one does take it up. Edit: For the record, I haven't done anything that should lead anyone to think I've left Wikipedia. I see this comment on the site sometimes, but now it's been applied to me I must say I don't understand it.Meerta (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2012.(UTC)

To clarify to volunteers, this discussion still hasn't been opened. Meerta (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to take the case. I will do a quick read of the situation tomorrow and come back here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispute still going on? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. If it gets resolved before the volunteer opens it one of us will delete this. (It has already been deleted once, which meant I had to open it again...Meerta (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the place of Hahc21 for this dispute if he does not mind. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, perhaps good idea to delete this stuff before opening?? Meerta (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to delete it all. I will just ask the other parties if continuing is needed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. Sorry, I had another big personal issue that caught me off-wiki since yesterday morning. I will be glad to help Ebe123 to solve this matter, as I have already read all the discussion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually forgotten about this until I was reminded of it this morning. I'd even forgotten who Brett Straub is to be perfectly honest, which I suspect probably goes for most people. Taking a fresh look at this, I think it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is. Alternatively, how about mentioning him at The Independent article as the incident really concerns that. If a 2,000 page report has just one mistake that's pretty good going, I would think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

So, which of the users were actually against the inclusion of the content? In my opinion, if its necessary and gives any value to the article, then the content should be added. Then it comes the how. Its addition needs to be proportionate to the value it gives. If it gives little value, then a line briefing the information is enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of the users with Opening Comments here (plus the filing editor, me), all were against this degree of inclusion except Jimthing. I think both myself and AJHingston think there's no grounds for inclusion at all, and Paul MacDermott suggests (I think) it might be better in the article for the Independent newspaper as anywhere. There had been other discussion on the page as you'll know from the discussion about "novelty" or pop inclusions, when weighed against an inquiry and report of great gravity. It is worth remembering when looking at sources for this article that opinions in press and related sources have to be viewed through a special filter for this story, because this was an inquiry into and with consequences for a powerful press. The reporting in the inquiry itself was itself considered relevant to the report. (Incidentally the distinction between fact and opinion having become less distinct in the presentation of current affairs was a theme in the evidence to the inquiry.)

The other discussions tended to conclude that such types of inclusions should be left out. There was a Christmas compilation of Have I Got News For You shown last week which had a sequence about the Leveson inquiry. Leveson had been discussed repeatedly on the show, but the Brett Straub thing wasn't included here, and to be honest I was not really surprised. The clips focused on the various subjects of the inquiry as the objects of satire, rather than the inquiry itself. Meerta (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't necessary for the article (re. previous post by ΛΧΣ²¹). Meerta (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I do feel quite strongly about this because the inquiry was on a serious topic on which the Wikipeida Foundation itself might well have been called to give evidence (as were Google, Facebook etc). It deserves a good article. It would be difficult to convey to outsiders the extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year, and the nature of that with journalists largely seeking to justify their own position and actions and many others using it as an opportunity to express contempt for the profession. Somebody trying to use the internet to find out what the inquiry was about and what it said will have a hard job without resorting to Wikipedia unless they refer to the report itself. If I felt that the Brett Straub affair was typical of one significant strand in the reaction to the inquiry and the the issues it raised then I would not object, but it is not - it is really about Wikipedia. Does anybody want to argue that it deserves a similar section in the Wikipedia article? Yet the justification is as strong. --AJHingston (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I see that a proper consensus is not reached yet. First, I'd like to point several personal comments over the section: adding "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" in prose is overdetailed, it fits better within the references; This: "...originated from an erroneous malicious edit" should be in quotes, because there is no way to know how that really happened unless the person who wrote the report said so. Is this the case? I won't give my opinions about the section itself yet without getting more into the content. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No the inquiry haven't commented on this (or anything else really since publication of the report). It isn't something that could impact on the conclusions and recommendations. Meerta (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this means the inquiry didn't affirmed that it was "an erroneous malicious edit", but information posted somewhere else no? (newspapers, etc)? In which, if that's the case, it should be taken with a grain of salt and put into quotes. I will check the sources to be more in context. I'd like to see any update regarding what the parties think. Paul MacDermott expressed that he "think[s] it could be briefly mentioned in the article, but not in so much detail as it presently is." From your (Meerta) comments above, I think that your live of view aligns woth Paul's one: it might be mentioned, but briefly. I'd liek to hear the opinion of the rest of the users involved, please. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The inquiry won't affirm this, because it doesn't have any bearing on the conclusions and so on. The report is finished and this would be treated the same way as an irrelevant error in some court judgement. Others inferred that the malicious edit in Wikipedia was the cause.

My view probably aligns with AJHingston's. I think it's a frippery, irrelevant and only worthy of an amusing aside (though not here) that probably has more relevance to Wikipedia than anything else. The inquiry has the same kind of gravity as a major criminal or civil trial. As AJHingston says, it's hard to express the amount of coverage there has been about it in the UK. HIGNFY's Xmas show had a series of clips from over the year, but unsurprisingly (to me at least) this wasn't one of them. The Spectator's assertion along the lines that the report is a "cut and paste" job has no evidence to back it up. The 2000-page report was praised by all sides in Parliament as a great piece of work. It is intended, as it says, as a collation of the enormous body of written and oral evidence given to the inquiry, with comment, inferences and conclusion from this evidence, and recommendations.

From page 51 of the report: "As for the Report, the consequences [of the timetable] are different. In an ideal world, I would have wished to write, re-write and hone this Report so that every nuance could be the subject of mature reflection. As previous inquiries have shown, given the amount of evidence whether oral,documentary or read-in, that would have been a task of very many months duration. This Report, therefore, is the work of many hands,1 all working to my direction and reflecting my views; that is the inevitable consequence of the way in which the work has had to be done. I place on record my appreciation to all those who have collated the evidence in relation to different aspects of the Report. Having said that, I repeat that every finding of fact, every conclusion and every recommendation expressed in this Report is mine alone. Equally, any errors are my responsibility."

The footnote says: "That is to say, I have been assisted in the drafting by Counsel and by civil servant members of the Inquiry team; the Assessors have been invited to provide comments on drafts only where appropriate."

All this incident tells us is that even employees of the most reputable organisations can still fall foul of Wikipedia's inaccuracies. It has no direct relevance to the inquiry or the report, or the issues they were about. The fact that it was seized on in some quarters to try and diminish the report to any degree won't be surprising to anyone who followed the inquiry carefully. Meerta (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Meerta is misrepresenting the issue here repeatedly, yet again. The issue is nothing to do with what the inquiry/report was/wasn't about (or its 'seriousness'), nor even how the media was/wasn't portraying it (positively or negatively). The issue is, why should WP all of a sudden remove all points of humour across the articles on site —regardless of the articles seriousness or any other reason— when they never have been before. The Straub section is one of these, and like other similar ones, it's been added right at the bottom of the article in one small, short, to-the-point paragraph, separate from reaction section (hence no inference thus taken in it making any judgements about the report), with those HIGNFY refs there, as previously explained, because it's a news programme on the main national broadcaster watched by a mere ~7 million viewers weekly in this country, giving it some form of national prominence, much like any newspaper, and helping prove AJHingsons point about "extent of coverage that this topic has had over more than a year"—certainly enough to justify it's inclusion here, and the Inquiry's repeated mention on the programme proves that. As for the description "erroneous malicious edit by an anonymous contributor", well what else was it?...erroneous (as it certainly wasn't correct, it must be an error, of course), malicious (it wan't done for good reasons, regardless of being a joke, so yes again), anonymous contributor (the edits were by an IP address only, presumably an anonymous associate of the aforementioned, so again, yes); pretty much defines this descriptive prose doesn't it. Again, while incidents like the Straub one are not part of the report directly, this doesn't preclude them form being mentioned as part of related information; they are not mutually exclusive for inclusion on article pages. Jimthing (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, my issue is with malicious. You can't be sure why it was done. It could've been a mistake, and mistakes are not malicious. That word should not be used as it cannot be sourced nor proven as to be true. My recommendation is to leave erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor, and try to source it if possible. But going back into topic, I am not completely sure wich is your side now Jim. Are you in favour of the inclusion of the content? If so, at which degree? A passing mention or a three-to-four line paragraph like it is presented now? if not, why? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the HIGNFY cites given (hence why included in the article cites in the first place), part of what you hear them mention is how some anonymous 'friend' contributed to WP adding Straub's name across many articles across the site, in effect giving him a 'pretend' public profile trying to warrant his inclusion in his own WP page by linking to him across several WP pages, with the Independent newspaper quote ending-up being cut/pasted into the Report. So no, it wasn't a mistake but was malicious, as per my explanation above. I have edited the point to make this clear, and I have removed the wrongly included "(series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012)" which is in the cite itself hence is over-detailed, as you previously mentioned above. Apart from that I'm for leaving as it is, as there is nothing wrong with what's there for the reasons I have given (both above, and on the page talk), the details explain the incident. Thanks for taking the time to review the dispute BTW. Jimthing (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But that is all about Wikipedia, and might be a response to my question whether anyone thinks it significant enough to be in an article on that topic (such as Vandalism on Wikipedia). Your case for inclusion in the Leveson article seems to be that you thought that the HIGNFY piece was funny and it referred to Leveson. But there has been very extensive coverage of the inquiry and report in straight reportage, op-ed pieces and comedy shows. What is its relative importance to, say, the evidence that the then deputy Prime Minister had his messages tapped by the media and that the police took no action, to take just one of hundreds of possible examples? Yes, we could try to cover it all in Wikipedia, but it would have to be a very long article. That is where WP:UNDUE comes into play. --AJHingston (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see I am in a minority here, and I don't want this to drag on and on endlessly wasting editors time. I have edited the page moving the exact Straub incident off the page and onto that vandalism page, in acceptance of the WP:UNDUE argument, just making a small comment in the reaction section about it accordingly as per other editors requests as a compromise, as it should be mentioned somewhere here. If this is now dealt with, this dispute should be closed, provided other editors are reasonably happy to do so. Jimthing (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I didn't realise we had an article about Vandalism on Wikipedia, but it seems an appropriate place for this incident. Also happy with the toning down in the Leveson article, so I've no objections to how things stand now. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

When I suggested (in common with AJHingston) that it should only be included in a much longer article, I really meant only in principle - in reality it would have to be a miscellaneous encyclopaedia of a kind which probably wouldn't get written about this. I see nothing wrong with humour in some types of article, but for this one not so sure, and these types of inclusions were argued in other sections with the "novelty" items ending up being removed. But I can't have any huge objection to the way it is now, with the prominence and phrasing it has. I'm ok with this.

In general, it's just not a very comprehensive article. Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal - that looks like a good article. On the other hand, the article for the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday in Derry is also quite short, despite being several times longer and more expensive than the Leveson inquiry, so perhaps this is acceptable for this. I'm sure the article on Bloody Sunday itself is a lot more comprehensive and draws on the Saville report.

As for the section moving to the Vandalism article, that's seems fine but I would still remove the Spectator reference. It isn't relevant to vandalism but more importantly it's misleading and simply untrue, as I've tried to explain. (The report is intended in part as a collation of the evidence.) To me it's an example of the politically motivated commentary that came after, but there are so many good examples of that. Meerta (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not a very good one as it stands. There was a much longer version prior to publication of the report which had a great deal about the process of the inquiry, though not the detail of the evidence before it nor the commentary upon it, and that was largely removed and briefly summarised along with a short section on the report itself. One of the things that needs to be done is to work through the report and summarise more fully. But I did feel that there was no point in doing this unless we could reach a consensus on the amount of detail, or the inclusion of odd things people found interesting (of which there were a great many especially given the prominence of the witnesses). --AJHingston (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this specific dispute is now resolved, if I have understood the comments above. The other parts of your comments may be valid about the whole article, but they should be addresses on the talk page directly where they belong. Though FWIW, I agree the article should have more depth for sure. Can someone, perhaps ΛΧΣ²¹, please close this now. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 18:08, 3 January 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:Paloma Faith#Age (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Paloma Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stellaseeker (talk · contribs)
• Criggy77 (talk · contribs)
• Majorbonkers (talk · contribs)
• jmb (talk · contribs)
• JuneGloom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Paloma Faith's date of birth was initially listed on a few websites as being 21st July 1985, making her 26. Further investigations (such as magazine articles from 2007 like http://www.exacteditions.com/read/trespass/issue-1-8880/23/2?dps=on listed on the discussion page) show her true date of birth to be 21st July 1981. However despite several users providing proof to her true date of birth, such as UK BMD records, the previously mentioned magazine articles, company director records and even a scanned birth certificate (which I however understand is not acceptable for Wikipedia), her date of birth is constantly reverted to 1985 due to "lack of sources" despite the sources for her 1985 date of birth being two "pr spin" web articles.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Voluminous links to documentations confirming her 1981 date of birth have been provided, however these have all been dismissed as unacceptable and her date of birth reverted back to 1985, despite the fact there is far more evidence to her 1981 date of birth than the 1985 date of birth.

How do you think we can help?

Review the submitted resources regarding the date of birth, and/or provide an acceptable usable source for a UK based registration document (such as a BMD document, company register document etc) regarding the same.

Opening comments by Criggy77

Opening comments by Majorbonkers

Opening comments by jmb

I came across the dispute by chance after seeing some doubts about her age in the press so looked it up on the GRO (official British government reference) index through two sources and confirmed 1981. Her name is quite unusual so it is very unlikely there is any ambiguity because of someone else with a similar name.

It was then that I found that several others had also looked up the date but corrections kept being reversed because of an incorrect date being given in unreliable sources like newspapers (I wonder how many of them have used the incorrect date on Wikipedia as a source!). I must admit that I have lost a lot of faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia because of this incident and distrust any fact I see on Wikipedia until I can confirm with a trustworthy reference. jmb (talk) 09:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by JuneGloom

Talk:Paloma Faith#Age discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• HPotato (talk · contribs)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs)
• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I want to refer to recent demographic studies that predict Marseille will soon become a Muslim-majority city. There's currently no mention of this in the 'Immigration' section of the article, even though the National Geographic article I originally cited is the first link I get when I type 'Marseille Immigration' into google. The next source I quoted to justify my edit was a BBC page which states that according to demographers, Marseille 'will be the first Muslim-majority city in Western Europe'. Both editors objected that this was on a programme description page, so I have now quoted an article by an academic which implies that Marseille will become a Muslim-majority city around 2030. Both editors continue to object, citing various objections, none of which I feel have a great deal of substance. The significant objections are:

1. the BBC source is not reliable because it is a programme guide;

2. the National Geographic source is not reliable because the forecast is qualified by the word 'likely';

3. neither source is reliable by virtue of insufficient focus on the issue - 'cherry-picking'/out of context;

4. WP:NPOV, and

5. the Boston College source does not make the date of Muslim-majority explicit - WP:CRYSTAL.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first time I've raised the matter.

How do you think we can help?

By providing third party opinions.

Opening comments by HPotato

Forecasts of the Muslim population of Marseille were and are the subject of intense media and public interest (the BBC page above is dated 3rd June 2012). Failing to adress the subject in the section of the Marseille article entitled 'Immigration' is a clear-cut case of 'ignoring the elephant in the room'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPotato (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mathsci

Improperly filed case according to this comment.[20] In addition a third editor disagreeing with HPotato's editing has not been included.

In his second edit to the article HPotato, a very recently created account, threatened to bring it to this board[21] after thirty minutes of editing the article. He was very shortly afterwards blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on the article. Hot off the block, he resumed his disruptive editing on the article and talk page. He reported here, as threatened, after his fourth content edit to wikipedia (with a registered account) and four hours after being unblocked, thinking that this was a place to elicit a third opinion. But it is not. There is nothing to be done here: no dispute. The talk page is the correct place for discussion, which just involves the appropriate use of reliable sources. If one isolated POV-pusher engaging in tendentious editing is unsuccessful in introducing undue poorly sourced speculative content, this noticeboard is not the place to resolve that. That is WP:RSN, in case of doubt. On the talk page HPotato was advised to make an enquiry at WP:RSN about sources, but has not done so.

Detailed discussion continues on Talk:Marseille and should not be fragmented by parallel discussions here because of one highly disruptive user who has made 4 content edits to wikipedia in his brief period as a registered user and who is in dispute with all other editors currently commenting. All detailed remarks about content and sourcing can be found on the article talk page. Transporterman can comment there as another editor if he wishes. This abuse of process will probably be superseded by a report at WP:ANI or WP:AN.

I have watched the neutral and anodyne article Marseille since 2007, with 430 edits. Only very seldom—far less often than on Europe—are there disruptive editors. HPotato follows Pmanderson and Zeromus1, both of whom were blocked by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dr.K.

Per Mathsci's comments above there is a third editor who has not been mentioned, so this is an improperly filed case. HPotato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) insists on adding speculation that in eighteen years from now Marseille will be on the verge of becoming a Muslim-majority city. As I explained in detail on the talkpage of the article such long-term speculation should not be included in the article per WP:CRYSTAL. A third editor has also commented and he said that adding this speculation would also be WP:UNDUE with which I agree. So we have three editors at the talkpage of Marseille who disagree with HPotato. The consensus is already clear. We do not need dispute resolution. We are only here because HPotato does not want to drop the stick. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment For the record. I did not object to the filing of the report. I just said it was improperly filed. Also this case needs no resolution. It is already resolved because the consensus is clear. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by GeorgeLouis

Opening comments by Johnuniq

For the record, there is a silent fourth party, namely myself. Marseille is on my watchlist, and whereas I haven't done much editing anywhere lately, I noticed the article near the top of my watchlist, showing HPotato's second edit. I had a look at the change, and reverted it with an edit summary to the effect that the text was in the wrong place, and if it was wanted elsewhere, it should be discussed on talk. My revert was edit conflicted, and it was Dr.K. who actually reverted HPotato. I didn't notice that until a couple of hours later when I had time to add my thoughts to the talk page, but I saw that Dr.K. had provided such excellent explanations that any comment I might have made would have been superfluous. There is no dispute to resolve, just a new editor who might need advice. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Marseille#Immigration discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. The proper remedy for the omission of a party that any of the parties believes to be essential is simply to add the editor to the editor list and to notify that editor using ((subst:drn-notice)), not to object to the filing. Since both objectors only mention a "third editor" but do not name that editor, I am loath to add parties who they may not believe to be essential (though I suspect that they're talking about GeorgeLouis) and would ask them to just do it themself, or failing that, to at least say who it is and a DRN volunteer will add them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Correction: I just spotted the link and added GeorgeLouis. I will notify him. TM 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing comments: I'm going to close this because I do believe that there is an adequate consensus against inclusion of the material at this time and in the form and with the sources which are being given to support it. In coming to this decision, I have disregarded all the allegations made about the experience, motivations, conduct, and editing practices of HPotato, all of which are entirely inappropriate for this forum in accordance with its guidelines, and have only considered the edits and sources which HPotato has offered and the arguments made against them. When consensus exists, it is inappropriate for dispute resolution to take place because there is no dispute to resolve and that must always be the first consideration when a DR volunteer takes on a case. However, I also have to say that I believe that this particular consensus is just barely sufficient to have that effect and is limited to the current dispute and current circumstances. Since the discussion is continuing on the article talk page, it may very well be the case that consensus will not exist or will no longer exist if the discussion moves beyond the current edits, sources, arguments, and counterarguments and that dispute resolution may well be appropriate if that occurs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 3 January 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

• Amir-Abbas Fakhravar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kabirat (talk · contribs)
• Siavash777 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The subject is a political prisoner from Iran. Several individuals who were also political prisoners in Iran (some of which were housed in the same cell as the subject) were interviewed by Mother Jones magazine wherein they gave evidence suggesting that the subject's accounts regarding his escape and his statute are false. In light of this information, editor Kabriat created a section outlining these controversies. Editor Siavash777 (which bears the same name as the subject's nickname) has repeatedly reverted these comments, simply wishing to relegate the topic to the following sentence "According to an article published in Mother Jones, a leftist magazine, some of other Iranian political activists criticizing Fakhravar's story."

During discussions on the issue Siavash777 argued that "the entire article is based on rummers [sic] and Mr. Fakhravar's enemies or competitors or Islamic Republic of Iran's informants who wants to attack Fakhravar and didn't have any fact never ever. You can't find any single fact for any of accusations made by writer of this article". In support of his accusations Siavash777 cites to a blog. Kabriat noted that the entire page currently has POV issues and that most of the biography is sourced to Front Page Magazine, a publication with "an ideological slant and questionable reliability." Kabriat then noted "Second, the Mother Jones article is reliable. It's not a "blog", it's an article written by Laura Rozen, an expert and frequent commentator and journalist on Middle East affairs (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/authors/laura-rozen). The article is also based on a variety of eye-witnesses testimonies. Third, to the extent we intend to rely upon Front Page Mag for any assertions, then there's not much of an argument to exclude the contrary position taken in the Mother Jones article. Lastly, all of the accusations are unfounded and in fact sourced to one blog which, coincidentally enough, seems to idolize the subject."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The topic was posted the talk page for the subject's article and the noticeboard on the biography of living persons, an archive which can be found here: (Volunteer has deleted the off wiki link. All archives links should be limited to Wikipedia archives only)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if a more neutral individual could moderate the dispute and recommend compromises.

Opening comments by Siavash777

Amir-Abbas Fakhravar discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States#POV Check (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)
• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main dispute which has been going on for months is whether certain polls are polls of single-payer healthcare or simply polls of "various levels of government involvement" in healthcare. Me and Scjessey are of the opinion that they are single-payer polls and Thargor Orlando/North8000/Arzel are of the latter.

This is the contested version in question.

Me and Scjessey hold that the consensus of virtually every reliable source is that they are single-payer polls but the other editors challenge this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• First DRN
• Second DRN
• NPOV noticeboard

How do you think we can help?

By deciding whether or not they are single-payer polls.

Opening comments by Scjessey

This again? "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in." At the beginning, I was an uninvolved editor brought in to mediate a dispute between Cartoon and Thargor. It quickly became apparent that Thargor was not interested in resolving anything and preferred to just revert anything that suggested Americans were in favor of a single-payer healthcare system (reliable sources be damned). Dispute resolution broke down because of Thargor's intransigence and tendentiousness. I abandoned the topic because I was fed up with beating my head against the Thargor brick wall. North and Arzel aren't really involved in this dispute other than to offer ideological support to Thargor. In essence, the topic suffers from a lack of editors and opinions, allowing non-mainstream views to have a greater voice than they otherwise would. I would still prefer to have nothing to do with this matter, but I will monitor this debate and chip in where appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Thargor Orlando

Once again, CartoonDiablo rushes to DRN as opposed to hashing things out at talk. The issue is not really content at this point, as the result of more eyes at the articles is resulting in an actual consensus coming about. The issue is CD's conduct at this stage - edit warring, 3RR, misuse of sources, violations of basic verifiability policy. These are not things DRN is designed to solve. We're here because CD's continued forum shopping has yet to result in his viewpoint winning, and I'm sure he'll try to escalate it yet again when this also fails to go his way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by North8000

As a preface, I tend to try to help "right wrongs" regarding happenings at articles and forums regarding following Wikipedia policies and guidelines and helping individuals that are improperly getting beat up. As such, as often as not I am supporting folks whose real world POV's are the exact opposite of mine. In this case most of the above applies, except that I am ambivalent regarding any related RW topics.

I have not been involved in any such dispute. I briefly commented on this in November and then was asked to look in by an uninvolved admin which I have done over the last 2 days. What I saw is behavioral problems by CartoonDiablo, and some rough "ganging up" by CartoonDiablo and Scjessey against Thargor Orlando (who was making policy-based arguments and edits) and my efforts have been towards something that will get those resolved. We may have been inching on a path towards that which I suspect is why this DRN was opened (as a smokescreen). The question in the posting is also fatally flawed. Whatever they are trying to do it should be in terms of article content. The closest legit topic I can think of would be "shall the wording in the article identify those as single-payer polls"? And the answer to the latter is given much direction by Wikipedia core policies. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arzel.

It would appear that there have been several polls about various health care policies, many of which are worded in reference to Medicare. Some advocacy groups have used the results of these polls to push a point of view regarding a single-payor health care plan. CD believes that since these sources call these polls single-payor like that they can be used in this article to present that POV, much like the single-payor advocates are doing. If polls are to be used (which in general are pretty worthless for complex questions like this) then they should be limited to poll questions which specifically ask the single-payor question, anything else is simply pushing a specific POV. Arzel (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer health care, United States National Health Care Act discussion

As no one else seems to want to take this discussion, I will. Is the dispute for everyone about adding "One Nation, Uninsured," New York Times and "If the Health Care Mandate Is Struck Down, Single-Payer Becomes the Best Choice", Huffington Post to the Public opinion section of the article? Some of you did not even talk about the content dispute, rather focusing on the behavioural aspect. If the dispute is adding these two references, here's another question. Why have these 2 references when there are 6 other references? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor opinion. I completely agree with Ebe123. Also, with such an exhaustively covered topic, why are you having such a difficult time finding clearer sources? Andrew³²⁷ 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more than that, that was simply the latest addition. The question is whether the polls themselves describe a single payer system (and thus whether the belong in the article). To copy-edit a bit from a previous discussion here is the consensus of the reliable sources:

• "A system in which the government provides universal health insurance is often referred to as "single payer,"" - New York Times
• "In poll after poll, a majority of Americans have expressed support for single-payer health" - Huffington Post
• "Kucinich points to public opinion polls from...CBS News showing support for single-payer health care" - NPR
• "We also note that the Bloomberg poll doesn't use the word "single-payer" (even though it amounts to the same thing)" - Politifact
• NPR (dead link)

This is affirmed by advocacy groups:

• Western PA Coaltition for Single-payer healthcare
• PNHP
• Medicare for All
• Healthcare-NOW!

The counterargument, literally, is the POV assertion that all those sources are wrong and that they are not single-payer polls. That's why the goal of this DRN is to decide whether or not they are polls of single-payer healthcare or not. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer Andrew (I don't know how I missed this initially), with such a politically-charged topic, and the amount of misinformation in the media (pro- and anti-), it becomes difficult to sift through the bad to find the good. Then you have the added bonus of the assumption that if someone is critical of a certain source, it's clearly evidence that they're critical against the topic. None of the editors involved know my position on single payer health care or HR676, but they're absolutely certain that, since I don't think certain sources are appropriate for Wikipedia or that media outlets misusing terminology should be handled with a critical eye, I'm pushing a "right wing POV." The entire debate is poisoned in the public sphere, and it becomes poisoned here as a result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason we're up to behavior at this point is because CD refuses to justify his sources on the talk page, as requested of him for months. The sources largely speak for themselves - there are advocates who make false claims, and CD wants to add them anyway. It's against policy, and when it's pointed out, he uses dispute resolution to make a case in order to get sanctions against others, edit warring if he must.

As for the sources, we've been trying to hash it out at the talk pages to limited success because of the behavior of certain involved editors. I suggest anyone who wants to pitch in take a look at the talk pages at these two pages as well as the now-merged Talk:Public opinion on health care reform in the United States. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for behavior (anyone can check my edits). Are you going to explain why you don't think they are single-payer polls or why the NYT, Huffington Post, NPR and Politifact are "advocates who make false claims"? CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I already have, numerous times, at the talk page. You refuse to engage or answer the questions, claiming false consensus or simply stonewalling. That's why this is an issue about your behavior at this point, independent as to whether this is the forum for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thagor, you must stop talking about conduct. Thagor, explain why do you do not like these sources. Also, what's your sources to say that the sources are false claims? Not taking any sides here, but you need to explain. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is exactly about conduct at this point. If you go to the talk pages involved, you'll see exactly the problems indicated, both content and conduct. It will not be fruitful to paste 100s of kbs of text here yet again, but what was removed handles some of it as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thagor, say something useful or go away from the article and CD. You do not seem to care about the article, nor are you helping the discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting commentary. Are you saying that my months of attempts at building consensus at the article have not been useful? That opening at discussion at the NPOV noticeboard once things came to a stalemate was not useful? Which is it, exactly? Have you read the discussions yet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that your comments here have not been useful. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say so. We're in a dispute because of CD's behavior, so it's hard to separate. Instead of making value judgments that he's sure to misinterpret, it would be more helpful to look at the evidence and help come to a conclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo's arguments and sourcing seem very solid. Thargor has been unable to make a compelling case for rejecting them. The "months of attempts at building consensus" are really just months of WP:IDL. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is almost entirely reliant on partisan advocacy. The text of the sources doesn't indicate what CD claims they do, nor is he able to defend them - if they truly claimed what he beleives they do, this wouldn't be a long-standing issue. This has nothing to do with what I "like," as you have no concept of my beliefs on any of the matters. It's an issue of policy, plain and simple. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You perceive these sources to be "partisan advocacy", but that is only because you view them through your own ideological lens. What we actually have are a series of reliable sources (such as the NYT, NPR, etc.) that are verified by other sources that include advocacy groups. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll pose the same question to you that CD avoided - if the NYT calls a chair a goat, are we supposed to simply take it at face value or understand that reliable sources need to be examined? As WP:RS notes about news sources, "[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." In these cases, we can clearly see that the sources are not accurate regarding what the polls are stating. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Will that happen. No. We're talking about real risk, not hypothetical risk. Also, how can you see that it is not accurate; it's like throwing out all the scientific data you think is incorrect. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In the last year, we've had news outlets misreport Supreme Court cases, terrorist attacks, and school shootings. It is not at all absurd to look at the facts and see that media outlets can be wrong about this issue, especially when we know what single payer health care is and how it contrasts with a) the questions asked in the polls and b) the understanding of the population (as noted by politifact). The issue is even more pronounced in the National Health Care Act article, which is about a specific bill that hasn't ever been polled as far as I can tell. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't entered this dispute, and I'd rather not, because I don't think I can stomach the lies from partizans and editors on both sides. However, I would have to say that we, as Wikipedians, are not required to include relevant material from reliable sources if the material is objectively wrong, even if no reliable source makes a contrary assertion. Others disagree. We are not allowed to include material from reliable sources where they are clearly quoting an unrelaible source. (Few) others disagree with that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, SCJ, there is no doubt that organizations like "Physicians for National Health Care," "Medicare for All," and "Western PA Coaltition for Single-payer healthcare" are partisan advocacy organizations. It's not even a question regardless of my "ideological lens" (which you would have no idea how to identify). Furthermore, we know, ideologically, where people like Dennis Kucinich or Paul Krugman stand on certain issues - it requires us to look at the claims critically and treat them as they are. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

But these are merely supporting existing reliable sources per WP:V. We are not relying on such adovacy groups as the sole source. You cannot throw all the sources out just because you disagree with some of them. And just because a source is an advocacy group, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything they say is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not actually supporting existing reliable sources, that's the point. If the sources say A, but the "supporting sources" say B, we cannot assume B. And yes, the only sources saying B are advocacy and/or partisan in nature. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So Thargor, what is your objection to each source individually? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done a detailed breakdown at the talk page here. As a group, I think there's also an issue with treating 20+ year polls as relevant to today, as well as positioning the article as saying X when Y is true by the evidence available. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer Thargor's question "if the NYT calls a chair a goat, are we supposed to simply take it at face value or understand that reliable sources need to be examined?" We would look to a RS to verify that the NYT is wrong, not base it off your opinion.

Thus far, Thargor is claiming that, in his opinion, all those reliable sources are wrong. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't keep repeating that in hopes that it becomes true. Of the actual reliable sources, the polls themselves, we see exactly what they are by what they ask. Some ask about single payer, my protest has not been with them, but rather the ones that are not. Just because a writer for Huffington or an advocacy group claims something is single payer does not require us to agree, especially if it's quite clear that it is not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That is your opinion of what "the polls themselves" are. We go by what the NYT, Politifact, Huffington Post and NPR say not what Thargor Orlando says. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't my opinion, but the actual words of the text. We go by what the polls actually say, not how an opinion column labels it or how an advocacy group tries to spin it - that's not how using reliable sources works. Repeating things over and over do not make them true, no matter how often you do it. If you can show me, using the language of the polls, how they're single payer, I'll be glad to have that discussion further. They're all mapped out at the talk page individually for examination and discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Every RS is saying that that is "what the polls actually say," that they are single-payer polls. Unless you are a reliable source yourself, your only violating WP:POV by inserting your perspective of what the polls say. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is patently untrue. For example, the Huffington Post link that claims it links to a 538 piece that synthesizes a number of polls regaridng the public option, not single payer. The Krugman piece talks about "universal health insurance" for a poll, as does the point from Kucinich at NPR. If they said "single payer," you'd be correct. They clearly do not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Conerns Hi all - I am a new editor in this discussion but I have followed the discussion above and I have some questions, I hope will clear the picture. They are

1. (WP:OR) - Can opinion polls printed by news media be seriously considered to be neutral, independent and reliable? Isn't there editorial pressure to suppress / promote some findings? Can these polls be audited by third parties?
2. (WP:SYNTHESIS) - Are we editors trying to draw conclusions based on our analysis of printed material? Can we not instead find reliable sources that have done the job of analysing these polls and printed their results?
3. (MOS:JARGON) - This policy has some excellent suggestions for treating Jargons and I suggest the idea of creating a seperate article that explains single-payer polls and presents both sides of the argument with a NPOV, and creating a wikilink in this article pointing to it.

Although the third point is not exactly a concern but I am worried if the usage of the term single-payer polls might just be a buzzword whose deffinition is evolving as of now. Regards -Wikishagnik (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out Wikishagnik. As far as I can tell, the only third party interpretations of the polls are by the RSs (NYT, Huffington Post, Politifact etc.) or by the advocacy groups. These seem to me to be mostly satisfactory.

To the point about jargon, the topic is single-payer healthcare and these are polls measuring that which is simple enough. The only real jargon is for our purposes in this discussion (when people claim they are not polls of single-payer) not really for the articles in question. CartoonDiablo (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's stick with the polls that only mention single payer health care, figure out a reasonable timetable in which the polling would be relevant, turn it into prose, and be done with it. You won't do that because you insist, against all available evidence, to put your POV on existing polls. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think any OR concerns come from the assumption (an assumption addressed by Politifact) that everyone views "universal health insurance" or "like Medicare" or "like Canada" or "single payer" the exact same way. If they did, polling would not be as all over the place as it is on the issues. That may result in synthesis problems as well, but it's more about poor use of sourcing than synthesizing or a jargon issue. We're talking at the talk page about perhaps having to do a wider-scale rewrite of all the health care delivery articles because of some of the overlap and misunderstanding, but that's a ways down the line, as we need to fix this issue first. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thargor says: "We go by what the polls actually say, not how an opinion column labels it or how an advocacy group tries to spin it." The only problem is, that is the WRONG way to use reliable sources. Wikipedia specifically prefers secondary reliable sources (newspaper columns) over primary reliable sources (polls). This project has always been more comfortable letting a secondary source interpret primary sources for us. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

All true (except IMHO on the applicability to Thargor's statement) I think that what Thargor was saying is that this is a third case that is worse that either direct use of polls, or the poll data digested by a wp:rs. Namely when we aren't seeing or using either but instead see/use only the restatement of or interpretation of the poll by an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

More or less. It's better to present the data as it is as opposed to allow partisans to cloud the issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As noted by WP:PRIMARY, "[a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Given the problems we're seeing with the secondary descriptions often being nonfactual, we are better off using the primary sources within policy here, not allowing secondary sources to push an agenda. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to be saying which secondary sources are being "nonfactual" though? I'm more inclined to accept the word of an advocacy group (who, by their nature, are also "experts" on the subject) than the word of Judge Thargor. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a difficult question. If a poll asks "X", and the respondent answers "X", and an advocacy group insists it says "Y", why are we bound to simply take what the advocacy group says? While I'm not arguing this, many would consider those advocacy groups to be questionable in this instance given their points of view. I think WP:RS is more instructive in this case: "[w]hether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." In this case, we can clearly assess the errors being made by these groups and sources (in some cases, with Politifact as a verified third opinion on the matter) as erroneous and treat them as such. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But in this case, other editors are disagreeing with your dismissal of certain sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, a handful are. Not based in policy or the wording of the polls, however. I see plenty of appeals to authority, I see plenty of trust of partisans, but not a lot of facts. Stonewalling with "X says so" isn't really a good argument, while explaining how the question "Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise?" describes single payer would be a better one. I see a lot of the former, and none of the latter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion, Thargor. In your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's my opinion, you can surely show me the diffs that demonstrate the latter. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your "I see plenty of trust of partisans" comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not my opinion, it's documented fact. Look at the sources CD has offered in favor of his position: a liberal columnist for the New York Times, a liberal columnist for the Huffington Post, a liberal former Congressman, four single payer advocacy groups, and the misuse of a Politifact piece that argues *against* him. It's absolutely trust in partisans. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Or put another way, respected columnists from the NYT and HuffPo, a respected Congressman, four advocacy groups who can provide expert analysis of the single-payer system and Politifact. One man's partisan is another man's guru. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They can be well-respected and partisan. No one's arguing that it's either/or, but it is agenda-driven, no doubt. The sources bear that out fairly well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see how you can get "partisan" from any of these sources. For example, I read Krugman's support of a single-payer system as something based on sound economic sense, whereas you apparently see it as a just another liberal supporting a liberal idea. Everyone views things through the lens of their own biases, so I can understand why you've adopted this rather extreme position. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You, again, do not know what my biases are. You're assuming plenty, but we know that Krugman is a liberal and even if he believes it's sound economic sense, it doesn't change what the position is. Krugman is a poor source for justification anyway, as he doesn't label the source he's referring to as single payer anyway. He's only being used as a fallacious appeal to authority because of his POV. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have no opinion about who or what is right or wrong here, nor have I made an extensive examination of what's gone before. All I've done is to read what's been said here and the comment and question I have is this: We cannot do here at DRN what is asked in the How do you think we can help? section, i.e. decide whether or not they are single-payer polls. This forum cannot make binding content decisions, nor can any of the other regular dispute resolution processes here. And that brings me to my question: What do the disputants think that we can do here? Is there any point in continuing to re-hash this discussion? To that end, I would raise the effect of the Consensus policy: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Is it time to perhaps ask an administrator to make a consensus determination and close the discussion at the article talk pages? Or perhaps instead to move on to getting the entire community involved through a RFC? I just get the impression that nothing is happening here except a rehash of what's been said many times before and I wonder whether or not this thread ought or ought not to be closed as "failed." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if DRN could make a content decision, the malformed question poses the question as a finding of fact, not of content. Just another of the multiple reasons that this is inappropriate, particularly at this time. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is where the problem lies in a nutshell. CartoonDiablo seemingly believes that DR comes to binding conclusions. This was not brought here to come to a conclusion, but to build a case: this is seen by CD when he constantly threatens to go to ArbCom if this is not "solved" here. Personally, it would be valuable for people who see this to come to the talk page and help build a consensus there. The behavior issues will be dealt with eventually because I don't see any other result for CD's current track, but this being brought up at AN/I got basically no attention, nor did the revert warring reported result in anything from the administrative team. I am under no delusion that this can result in anything regarding certain involved parties on its own. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Despite the malformedness of the original DRN proposal, it has been my hope that DRN could (at the very least) mediate discussion between the two parties. Previously, this would've been a prime candidate for MEDCAB. That being said, the parties are dug in deeper than the NHL and NHLPA were! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet they worked it out. I don't think a) keeping it in prose and b) sticking to only polls that deal explicitly with single payer is a bad compromise. The disagreement is baffling. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should get a third opinion or comment and then continue here. And to the point about compromise, there's no compromise between violating POV and not doing so, if the overwhelming consensus of the sources says something than that is what we use, not a compromise between what the sources say and what some editors believe. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If the sources say something, that's what we use. That's why we should not be calling the bulk of those polls single payer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes so if the NYT, Huffington Post, NPR, Politifact etc. call the polls single-payer polls even if they don't use the words single-payer, then we call them single-payer polls. Otherwise it would be WP:Fringe. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in most cases, that's not actually true, but even if it were, it would not be fringe, but based in WP:V, an actual policy. Refer to the discussion above. Also, again, take some time and show on the talk page of the article how the individual polls meet the standard of single payer health care if you can. You could save a significant amount of time by not avoiding that, given you've decided to open an RfC now while this is ongoing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Right that's why I suggested temporarily closing this DRN discussion until the RfC was done. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How many more forums do we need to go to? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:22, 7 January 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

• Carolina-Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dabo Swinney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Clemson-South Carolina football brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LesPhilky (talk · contribs)
• GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs)
• Clmsntigr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This issue is a rather larger one than one single content dispute. GarnetAndBlack holds a deep-seated hatred and bias against Clemson University. Any pages related to Clemson, he edits with extreme bias or retaliates in some way if a Clemson user (like myself) corrects one of his erroneous edits. GarnetAndBlack is extremely rude and abrasive to all Clemson editors, and he makes threats with Wikipedia policy or removes entire sections of content for minor edits. He often demands a consensus be made on the talk page, yet he still ignores said consensuses and continues to revert changes. His edits are often made with snide, clearly biased comments against Clemson (such as trash talk when updating a Clemson loss to a statistic box).

Recently, he deleted positive, factual information about Clemson head coach Dabo Swinney when a minor edit and citation could have been added instead. These edits were done to retaliate immediately against my edits to the Clemson-South Carolina football brawl page that corrected factual errors that painted Clemson in a bad light. In other words, he often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" rather than making minor corrections if the information paints Clemson or the school's coaches in a positive light. Attempts to communicate with him usually result in personal attacks or he is non-responsive. On one occasion, a fellow Gamecock fan of his even had to point out that he was off-base with his insistence that an extremely questionable source that painted Clemson in an unfavorable light not be removed.

Since I am a Clemson fan, in the spirit of Wikipedia policy for unbiased and factual information, I refrain from editing Univ. of SC pages because I know I'm not the best person for this job. However, GarnetAndBlack bias has run rampant in editing Clemson pages, exhibits "ownership", he exudes extreme hostility to those who question him, and I also believe he is "gaming the system" with his constant threats over Wikipedia policies.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

About a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I did not handle our conflicts appropriately. I admit that. Since then, however, I have tried to work with him in making productive edits. I've reached out to him on various talk pages, only to be ignored unless I make an edit he disagrees with. Then I am either threatened or he orders me to find a consensus, although there's really only the two of us editing. Twice I've had to bring in third parties to resolve it. He addresses me rudely even when I am polite

How do you think we can help?

Well, I'm hoping a third party can open his eyes to his bias and hostility without having to go to arbitration. I'm hoping a third party can show how the bias and utter hatred of all things Clemson severely impacts his ability to edit pages about Clemson without compromising the integrity of the pages. While I have my own bias, I do not harbor such hatred towards Univ. of SC (I actually do some work for them that brings new students to the school). Thank you.

Opening comments by GarnetAndBlack

What this noticeboard is not:

• It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
• It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.

This will be my first and last comment here. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And this illustrates my points. Rather than denying or refuting any of these points, he dismisses the issue altogether. Please note that GarnetAndBlack has deleted some of the discussions on the Talk pages in an attempt to hide the problems. Also, the link to DRN said it was for content AND conduct disputes.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Even now, he is trying to delete my comments in this discussion (he deleted my above reply). His behavior during this dispute resolution request is a snapshot of how he generally behaves when working with other editors.--LesPhilky (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Clmsntigr

Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of Young Justice episodes#Edit-warring (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LoveWaffle (talk · contribs)
• Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is basically a question over how similar a re-worded statement can be from its source without qualifying as a copyright violation. Particularly, this concerns brief plot synopses for upcoming episodes of the Cartoon Network animated series Young Justice announced via press release. I provided a re-worded version of the synopses for the episodes' entries on the List of Young Justice episodes. Jack Sebastian then removes them, calling them copyright violations, and replaces them with a re-worded version that, in my opinion, is significantly closer to the source material. Since I consider that a copyright violation, I restore the old version (mine) of the page. Jack Sebastian removes them again and...you see where this is going.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Jack Sebastian and I have, in simplest terms, had it out with this dispute. In two different locations, even. However, as Jack Sebastian is now making personal attacks and doing everything in his ability to block me from contributing to the discussion, my hands are now tied.

How do you think we can help?

As I said, Jack Sebastian has made personal attacks and is doing everything to keep me out of the discussion. To be honest, I don't know if I could continue the discussion without doing the same. I need the dispute to be resolved quickly before this escalates and at least one of us winds up blocked.

Opening comments by Jack Sebastian

Talk:List of Young Justice Episodes#Edit-warring, User talk:LoveWaffle#Unacceptable discussion

It appears to me that there have been third parties who have intervened in this dispute at the article talk page after it was listed here and that discussion has become unstuck. Unless someone objects, I or another DRN volunteer will close this case 24 hours after this posting. If the listing party is considering objecting, however, they need to take into consideration that the listing will probably be closed nonetheless if the other party does not choose to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:39, 9 January 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

• Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)
• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• 61.245.168.53 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In August Beeblebrox add tags to the page based on AFD discussion which resulted as Keep and Improve. This page mostly edited by Himesh84. Beeblebrox, obi2canibe also contributed to article. But most of the obi2canibe are introducing tags and undones. No contribution to the content. In the talk page obi2canibe has stated he is not an expert on this subject. Also Beeblebrox said he is not interest about article and he have little knowledge on subject.

More referenced were added to the page. This page was there since considerable time no one specifically says what are the problems in the page.

Yet, again article was nominated to delete in Here and no one raised problem in article. Most of the participant praised the page and result was just Keep. obi2canibe also participated to the latest AFD discussion. He is neither act according to latest consensus nor specifically providing what are the issues in the current version.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I requested to specify issues in the article ( Talk page discussions) and tried to resolve issues with users who edited content but not further involved in the page. I also tried to communicate with users who contributed to the content but not active on this page

How do you think we can help?

Help to remove tags according to the consensus and result of latest AFD or specifically address issues which I can use to improve the page.

Opening comments by Beeblebrox

I do not consider myself an involved party and will not be participating in this discussion or monitoring this situation in any way. See related closed thread on my talk page for repeated explanation of this position. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Obi2canibe

Opening comments by 61.245.168.53

See the dispute overview notes. ( I got different IPs from DNS )

Ethnic conflict_in_Sri_Lanka discussion

Closing notes: The fact that an article has been "kept" in an AFD discussion only means that the article meets the minimum standards for independent inclusion in Wikipedia; it implies nothing about the overall article quality and, for that reason, article quality tags are entirely appropriate, if needed and appropriate. The present request is only over the effect of that keep. To the extent that there is an allegation that one editor insists on the tags remaining on the article, but will not specify what problems need to be corrected, that is — if true — a conduct dispute which is not within the scope of this noticeboard. There is no dispute over the substantive content of the article which has had sufficient recent substantial discussion at the talk page to justify a request here. I would close by reminding everyone involved here, without pointing fingers at anyone in particular, that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions under the community decision made here and logged here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 10 January 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

• Narcissism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Individualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Penbat (talk · contribs)
• Shadowjams (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Link between Individualism and Narcissism is in violation of WP:IRS. Attempt to remove the content has resulted in an ongoing edit war. Repeated requests have been made to discuss the content on the talk page, but other users have refused to engage me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeatedly asked the other users to engage me on the talk page. Tried to seek advice at WP:AN#Burden of Proof. Tried to tag the content instead of delete it, but Wiki-markup does not seem to allow tags on links.

How do you think we can help?

Enforce WP:IRS, and remove the content until sources are cited and a case has been made.

Opening comments by Penbat

Opening comments by Shadowjams

I'm hardly involved in this outside of concerns about edit warring. For context see WP:AN#Burden of Proof and the previous ANI at [22]. The only new comments were added within the last few hours, and the old discussion from December 29 was accompanied by the originator of this being blocked for edit warring. Shadowjams (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Narcissism, Individualism discussion

This request will be closed by a DRN volunteer as stale unless someone objects within the next 24 hours after the posting of this notice, and will be closed even then unless Penbat chooses to participate here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. At the individualism talk page, I wrote "Quite a few books have contrasted or compared individualism with or to narcissism." Nobody has taken up this suggestion and brought together the two concepts with reference to the published literature. I wonder if that is because nobody has bothered to look for any! See below for some suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, page 207. "These results are completely consistent with increases in individualism and narcissism. The evidence shows that the young generation is more self-focused, and whether that is called emerging adulthood or individualism, the result is the same." W. Keith Campbell, Joshua D. Miller, 2011, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 1118029267
  • Narcissism in the Workplace: Research, Opinion and Practice, page 62. "Two specific societal or cultural values that would tend to encourage narcissism if carried to extremes are individualism at the expense of collectivism, and materialism at the expense of concern for others." Andrew J. DuBrin, 2012, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1781001359
  • Relationships Among Overt and Covert Narcissism and Vocational Interests with Respect to Gender, page 28. "Foster et al. (2003) explored the implications of ethnicity and culture for the personality trait of narcissism. In summarizing the literature, these authors found that a continuum of self-esteem and individualism appeared to exist..." Darrin L. Carr, ProQuest, 2008, ISBN 1109095023
  • The Depleted Self: Sin in a Narcissistic Age, page 103. "The aspect of this scapegoating of individualism that applies here is the condemnation of individualism for its alleged role in creating the social conditions within which narcissism has taken root and flourished." Donald Capps, Fortress Press, 1993, ISBN 0800625870
  • The Vulnerable Therapist, pages 19–20. "Lasch first coined the term culture of narcissism to describe a society obsessed with '...competitive individualism, which in its decadence has carried the logic of individualism to the extreme of a war of all against all, the pursuit of happiness to the dead end of a narcissistic preoccupation with the self.' Our narcissistic culture focuses on living for oneself in the here and now..." Helen W. Coale, Psychology Press, 1998, ISBN 0789001799
  • Counseling and Community: Using Church Relationships to Reinforce Counseling, page 29. "This linking of individualism, narcissism, and needs is an important one that is often ignored in this culture because personal needs have become instrumental to our understanding of life." Rod Wilson, egent College Publishing, 2003, ISBN 1573832502
  • Measuring Narcissism with Alternate Response Formats of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, page 8. "Levels of narcissism also vary across different cultures. Cultural differences in individualism versus collectivism have garnered particular attention by narcissism researchers." Lori Westmoreland, ProQuest, 2009, ISBN 1109307357

Binksternet, If you know of the sources, you are responsible for providing them. If you would have posted this on the talk pages, as was expected of you and repeatedly asked for in my edit comments, a discussion would have ensued instead of an edit war. If you would post this on the talk page instead of here, we can close this dispute and have a discussion.--115.94.64.219 (talk) 04:26, 11 January 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

• Juan Manuel de Rosas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lecen (talk · contribs)
• Cambalachero (talk · contribs)
• MarshalN20 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the past three years Cambalachero and I have clashed over certain aspects of Argentine history. The main issue right now is about Juan Manuel de Rosas who ruled Argentina from 1829 until 1852. I pointed out that he is regarded by historians a dictator and a ruthless one. Cambalachero, on the other hand, says that historians regard Rosas a democratically elected leader.

This issue was discussed years ago in Platine War talk page and was recently discussed in Juan Manuel de Rosas own article. I requested a Third Opinion and Noleander volunteered to help. After a long debate he agreed with me that Rosas was a dictator, that historians generally agree that he was a dictator and that Cambalachero's view is Revisionism and can not be taken as mainstream view regarding the matter. Nonetheless Cambalachero has refused to back down and that's why I came here. I need the help of other authors in dealing with this problem.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• 1) Long and futile discussion in Platine War talk page.
• 2) Long and futile discussion in Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page.
• 3) Requested third opinion from a neutral editor.

How do you think we can help?

Cambalachero has argued that the article should say that Rosas was a dictator according to some historians but not to others. That Rosas killed thousands of innocent people according to some historians and none according to others. And so on and on. For obvious reasons, an article in Wikipedia can not be presented as two heads sharing a same body. As Noleander remarked: ""If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority"

Opening comments by Cambalachero

First of all, Lecen misrepresents my words. I do not say that historians, as an unified body, say that Rosas was democratic. I pointed that there are many who said so, that the view of Rosas as a dictator is not universal, and that modern Argentine historians have already ended that dispute. Although the historians who did not condemn Rosas were known as "revisionists", the most respected Argentine historians and heads of academic institutions (all there in the talk) point that this "revisionism" has been incorporated into the standard academic knowledge of Argentina; thus, a paradigm shift took place and it is not revisonism anymore. Again, it is not me who says that, it is fully referenced (it may be long or boring to read, but the references are there). And respected tertiary sources pointing the current consensus over a topic are better than discussing ourselves which is that consensus. As for English-speaking sources, John Lynch points himself that Rosas is completely forgotten in it, that nobody studies him; then discussing the current consensus among English-speaking sources is abstract and mostly pointless. To avoid Systemic bias we should consider the body of authors who do work heavily on this and related topics (Argentine Spanish-speaking historians).

In short: Lecen wants the article to say, in Wikipedia's voice, "Rosas was a dictator". I think instead that the article should point who considered Rosas a dictator, who did not, and which is the current state of the historiographical dispute (which is resolved). As it is done in the article Oliver Cromwell, the focus of a similar real-world controversy, and checked and edited by far more English-speaking editors: the word is present but always attributed, never in a "Cromwell was a dictator" way, even when we wouldn't lack sources to reference it. Besides, Wikipedia has a policy to avoid contentious labels. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion

Comment - Last week I tried to help resolve the dispute by offering a Third Opinion in the Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page. For that reason, I'll recuse myself from acting as a DRN volunteer here. FWIW, my opinion is that there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances. The article currently contains virtually no mention that many historians consider him a dictator, so some white-washing has been definitely been going on. At a minium, the article needs to state that "many historians consider him a dictator". The next issue is whether the article can state that "Rosas is a dictator" in the encyclopedia's voice. User Lecen provided very strong sources showing that mainstream historians do consider him a dictator, so using the encyclopedia's voice seems warranted. The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the "he is not a dictator" viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You requested sources and they have been provided. If they are too long or boring for you to read them, step aside and let someone else do it, don't act as if they were not given. As for Lecen's "very strong" sources, check again: they are sources of other topics, making mere passing-by comments about Rosas. They do not adress the historiography aspect of Rosas, they don't have in-depth coverage, their content is trivial. Academics that talk about the historiography of Rosas should take priority over mere google searches for basic terms. Cambalachero (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the sources you provided were inadequate, as explained in the Talk page discussion. Feel free to pick 3 or 4 of your best sources and re-quote them here in the DRN case. Be sure to clearly identify the historian & their credentials. --Noleander (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Noleander, you don't have to go very far. An entire chapter of Lyman L. Johnson's "Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America" is focused in Juan Manuel de Rosas' legacy in Argentina, from his downfall in 1852 until the present-day (see Chapter 4, beginning with page 105). The author said: "If Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina's most brutal politician of the nineteenth century, can be reinvented as a symbol of patriotic resistance to foreign oppression..." (page 13). The chapter reveals how Rosas was used by some politicians (mainly Juan Perón, who was also a dictator) as a tool for their own needs. Is every English speaking historian biased against Rosas? --Lecen (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This claim about Perón has already been refuted at the talk page. I cited Fernando Devoto, titular teacher of theory and history of the historiography at the "Faculty of Philosophy and Words", and researcher at the Ravignani institute, author of the book "History of the Argentine historiography" (as you see, a much more specific book for the topic at hand). Perón did not promote revisionism in a political manner over the natural work of academic institutions. Here and here you have scanned pages with all the details. As for the repatriation of Rosas’ body, Menem did not intend to start a "cult of Rosas", but rather make a symbolic end to the disputes that once divided the country. Check his speech here. Yes, it departs from the academic background (the fate of the body of a historical man is not part of his historiography), but it reconfirms that the dispute is over.

Horacio González, president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, had this interview. He said about revisionism that "From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first" (in other words, a paradigm shift).

Félix Luna was also a university teacher, Secretary of Culture of Buenos Aires, and received the Konex Award. In the book "With Rosas or against Rosas" he wrote "Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance."

Luis Alberto Romero, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martín and the UBA, wrote this. "Historical revisionism, a historiographical movement that defied that perspective, added original causes – a romantic idea of the people, a hostile perspective of Britain, reinvidicaton of Rosas and caudillos – but ultimately it was built over similar premises, and when it was traducted for the schools it was as a moderate and pacific version, complementary rather than alternative of the dominant one". In other words, revisionism has been incorporated into the standard view of history, and national education teachs that.

Isidoro Ruiz Moreno, director of the National Academy of History, wrote the book "Argentine Military campaigns". He pointed in the prologue that "It is not the task of the one who reconstructs them [note: the historical peoples] to defend or condemn them: just to point how did they acted in the events where they have been involved".

The quotes may be expanded if required, but I hope they are concise enough for the layman now. As you see they are not descriptions of Rosas himself, so that we define ourselves how do historians see Rosas (a task borderline with original research), but descriptions of academics who have already done that job. I may also add that, more than a century after his death and with his political party extinct, Rosas appears in the Argentine currency. No despised dictator would have such honor, which is reserved for the most remarkable people of a country. He also has a national day. Cambalachero (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There are over a dozen sources identified here which state plainly that "Rosas was a dictator" or something similar. To rebut that, I'd expect to see sources that say something like "Historians sometimes claim that Rosas was a dictator, but they are wrong because blah, blah ..". Let's look at your sources to see if they say that:

• Devoto - No.
• González - No.
• Luna - No.
• Romero - No.
• Moreno - No.

I asked you to provide your 3 or 4 best sources that asserted that Rosas was not a dictator, and you did not provide a single one. --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As a Latin American historian, I completely agree with Cambalachero. As all history students should know, even those who have skimmed a history book every now and then, certain characters and events are highly controversial. Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of these characters, a person who during his lifetime was lauded by his supporters and despised by his opponents. This has translated into the historiographical study of the person, with academics taking opposing sides in the issue. I support the notion that the Wikipedia article should reflect the complexity of the issue without taking a specific side, the opposite of what is proposed by Lecen.

• Note: What I also find strange is what exactly Lecen plans to do with having Rosas classified as a dictator? What does Lecen plan to do with what he considers the "minority view"?

Lastly, I find Noleander's statement about me ("obfuscate and stonewall") quite insulting. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, for the fifth time, I ask: Can you provide a few reliable sources that state something like: "Contrary to what some historians say, Rosas was not a dictator because blah blah .."? My "obfuscate and stonewall" comment is accurate, because the prior 4 times I've asked that same question, I've received lengthy replies that did not respond to the question. Most recently, immediately above in Cambalachero's reply (where he lists five sources that do not even mention the word "dictator"). --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Compromise proposal (focusing only on the Rosas article for now) - What if we create a new section in the article that focuses on the dictator issue. We include the reliable sources that state he was or was not a dictator. For the short term, we attribute all the sources (that is, we do not use the encyclopedia's voice). Since this is not an article on historical revisionism, we avoid sources that are only discussing revisionism, and limit ourselves to sources that simply state whether or not Rosas was a dictator. --Noleander (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We are running in circles here. According to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, tertiary sources (in this case, historians talking about the historians who talk about Rosas) are a better way to determine due weight and academic consensus than reading secondary sources (historians talking about Rosas) and trying to decide that ourselves. As for Lecen's list, I just made a review at the talk page, perhaps you'll see that the list is not so strong as it seemed on first sight. As for your proposal, there is already such a section in Sum of public power#Controversy, which is mentioned in the main article in summary style: "There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento compared Rosas with historical dictators, while José de San Martín considered that the situation in the country was so chaotic that a strong authority was needed to create order. Of course, it is limited to the controversy of the time being (anything else would easily go off-topic). The historiography of Rosas has a special section, once the proper biography is over. Cambalachero (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not running in circles. (1) Despite being asked five times, you still have not provided any sources that rebut the numerous modern historians that claim Rosas was a dictator; (2) The sentence in the article you cite ("There are divided opinions on the topic: Domingo Faustino Sarmiento ... while José de San Martín ... ") presents the opinions of two of Rosas contemporaries (politicians from the 19th century). The proposed compromise is suggesting adding material based on the analysis of modern, objective historians. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that if a significant number of renowned historians state that Rosas was not a dictator, this information should be included in the article. Which are the sources that state this? A statement in WP must be sourced, so present those sources and if they are reliable then be done with the issue. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The section "Criticism and historical perspective" is the place where any discussion on Rosas' government should and already takes place within the article. Based on this, Noleander's proposal does not make sense.

I further disagree with Noleander's claim that no single source has been provided by Cambalachero. From my perspective, the following sources effectively support the position that the modern historiography aims to provide a balanced look of the individual:

1. Félix Luna (With Rosas or against Rosas): "Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance."
2. Horacio González: "He said about revisionism that 'From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first'." (Quoting Cambalachero)
3. Luis Alberto Romero: Revisionism (Rosas was not a dictator) is now complementary with the view that Rosas was a dictator (Paraphrasing the quote provided by Cambalachero).

NOTE: The term "revisionism" essentially means "Rosas was not a dictator" (for all those that don't get the point). Those who wrote in favor of Rosas, following his fall from power, were called "revisionists" and the title stuck with them even to this day.

That none of these sources directly state "Rosas was not a dictator" does not mean that it is not what they mean. Anyone that does not know what "revisionism" means when it comes to Rosas is simply ignorant of the historiographical dispute. I think Cambalachero's mistake is to not have explained this to Noleander, but I hope my explanation clears things up.

Regards.-- MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the Revisionism does not mean that "esssentially Rosas was not a dictator". You have clearly no knowledge of what is under discussion here. You are not helping at all. Not even Revisionists argue that Rosas was not a dictator. Noleander pretty much summarized quite well the problem: "there are two schools of thought about Rosas: (1) That he was a dictator/tyrant; or (2) he was a nice guy, but was forced into his authoritarian role by circumstances". A fine example can be found in a Revisionist work: "There is no doubt that Rosas can be criticized for his tendency to authoritarianism. Nothing justifies persecutions, throat-cutting or execution by fire squad. But his supporters [Revisionists] are correct when they argue that the official history is determined to place over his shoulders all the violence of his era ... According to them [Revisionists] it [Rosas' rule] was not a bloody tyranny, but a paternalistic autocracy ... which was what national and international circumstances allowed." Source: page 20 of O'Donnell, Pacho. Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Norma, 2009. ISBN 978-987-545-555-9 Thus, MarshalN20, either you start reading a single book about Rosas or get out of here. --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Luckily for me, I do have the book you just quoted. I do not use it very often, but let's see. You quoted "but a paternalistic autocracy ... which was what national and international circumstances allowed" The "..." means that there is a part of the quote that was ommited. For going off-topic, perhaps? No. Let me make the complete quote: "According to them it was not a bloody tyranny, but a paternalistic autocracy, the closest thing to a democracy (from greek "demokratía", "government of the people"), that national and international circumstances allowed." I bolded the part that Lecen carefully removed from the quote. And to confirm that, unlike Lecen, my translation is faithful word by word to the original material, with no removals or changes that modify its meaning, check here, the scanned page directly from the book. Pacho O'Donell is the president of the "Manuel Dorrego" national institute. Cambalachero (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That blatant omission by Lecen is a clear indiciation of source manipulation. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

With regards to Lecen's unfounded accusations of me not reading about Rosas, I disagree with them. In essence, revisionists do not see Rosas as a dictator (in the modern sense). Hence, I wrote the word "essentially".

Again, my view is that a balanced evaluation of the individual is necessary, and not an "encyclopedic voice" telling the reader what to believe.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Marshall: the word "revisionism" means a change to accepted (or prior) historical understanding (or interpretation). You may personally feel that in the context of Rosas, the opinons of revisionists were that he was not a dictator, but WP cannot rely on your personal feelings. I see one quote (immediately above) on how revisionists feel about Rosas-as-a-dictator. What other sources say something like "Revisionists generally believe that Rosas was not a dictator because ... " or something similar? --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I found this source from John Keane (political theorist) ([23]). Please read pages 414 and 415. Keane's "caudillo democracy" is a perfect explanation of the complicated Rosas regime. Rosas cannot simply be labeled a "dictator" because his ruling style was a strange mix between democracy and despotism ("Democratic Caesarism"). This is why I keep repeating that the common description of Rosas is as Caudillo. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Compromise proposal #2

(Following up on MarshalN20's suggestion) - We add material to the "Criticism and historical perspective" which addresses the various viewpoints of modern scholars (not 19th c. contemporaries). We include historians that call him a "dictator" and we include historians that say he was not a dictator, but instead was ...blah, blah. In all cases, we identify the historians by name per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. How does that sound? --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I know nothing about Rosas, and I am here because volunteers were apparently requested. It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". See for instance the article on Fidel Castro and the article on Hugo Chavez - in both cases some people see him as a dictator and others as a savior. We need to guard against simply adopting the USA opinion, and to take account of other viewpoints, and the differing standards of other periods in history. One hardly sees a medieval or biblical king being labelled as a dictator, although they certainly wielded more power - and murdered more innocent people - than the average despot of modern times. Nowhere does Wikipedia describe Christopher Columbus or Douglas MacArthur as dictators, although at a stage in their lives both of them were undoubtedly dictators of substantial territories, and wielded absolute power with no mandate from those being governed. I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context. I hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[re-indented to be under Compr #2 .. since it seems to dovetail with that] --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wdford: You make some excellent point. I think you would agree that there is a big difference between (A) a figure that some contemporaries condemned as a dictator (Columbus? McArthur?); and (B) a figure that (some) modern historians explicitly call a "dictator". For case (A), the encyclopedia could omit the opinions of contemporaries if modern historians are silent on the matter. But in case (B), the article should represent what those historians say. Of course, if other historians say "not a dictator" that should be included also. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can not agree with Noleander nor with Wdford. You are both giving undue weight for a Revisionism school, which is not even mainstream. We can't place in Rosas' article two different and opposing views as they had the same weight. It's an absurd. It doesn't make sense at all. Am I the only one who has noticed that so far I have brought sources while Cambalachero and MarshalN20 have given nothing more but their personal opinions? What the f&%@ is that? Since when reliable sources have the same weight as Wikipedians' personal opinions? --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that would come out in the proportionality of the material. If there are five neutral historians that say "is a dictator" and only 2 that say "is not", that would speak for itself. Furthermore, if the historian is biased, that fact can and should be presented in the article. It would also help if there was a source that said "The revisionists are biased" or "the revisionists are not in the mainstream". --Noleander (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article has to be completely rewritten using reliable sources. The situation has reached such a ridiculous point that what I just said seems novel. We must use reliable sources in that article. That's all. Nothing more. Cambalachero hasn't provided any reliable book that says that Rosas was not a dictator nor that Revisionists are reliable (if they were mainstream as Cambalachero claimed, why are they called Revisionists, then?). What we could do is to add in the "Legacy" section a couple of paragraphs about the Argentine Revisionism and its views relating to Rosas. But the main body of the text must be based on reliable, credible and accepted sources. --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At last, the rabbit comes out of the hat. I completely disagree with Lecen's intentions.

I support Noleander's second proposal.

The Luis Alberto Romero source is actually pretty clear in that "revisionism" is on the same level as the traditional history of Rosas (in Argentina).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this for an outline of a new paragraph (or subsection) within the Criticism section, which goes something like this:

Many modern historians consider Rosas to be a dictator or tyrant. Historian A wrote "blah blah". Historian B wrote "blah blah". Historian C write "blah blah". Other historians, generally affiliated with Argentinian revisionist school of thought, are more sympathetic to Rosas. Historian D wrote ".he was not so bad because blah blah...", Historain E wrote "..blah blah .". Historian F suggests that the revisionist school of thought is biased because blah blah. Revisionist Historan G suggests that F is biased because blah blah.

Of course, every sentence would be sourced to a reliable source. The final two "bias" sentences are just placeholders in case there are documented allegations of bias ... there may be none, in which case those "bias" sentences would not appear. --Noleander (talk)

I have two questions: 1) How is it possible to write an entire article with opposing views if Cambalachero hasn't brought a single source so far? 2) How am I able to write an article about a person if every paragraph I'll have to present two opposing views? Would you like to read an article written the way you proposed above in the quotation? Do you believe the average reader will like to read it? It would be confusing and boring and absurd. There is not a single book in English that gives any credibility toward Argentine Revisionism. Why should it even be mentioned in the main body of text, then? --Lecen (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the direction being taken by Noleander.

However, the "dictatorship" in question happens during Rosas' second term as governor.

To plainly label Rosas a "dictator" simply for his second term in office (to which he was democratically elected) is not correct.

This is why most historians label Rosas as a caudillo.

GoogleBooks: "Rosas" and "Caudillo" (140,000 hits), while "Rosas" and "dictator" (43,200).

Hope this helps.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion came under my notice for some reason, and I think there is a good solution on the table: Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly "Rosas was not a dictator". Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I don't think any editor insisted on sources that say "Rosas was not a dictator" verbatim. The request was for sources that _rebutted_ "is a dictator" claims by saying something like: "Some historians label Rosas as a dictator, but they are mistaken because ...". --Noleander (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksterne, how do you expect someone to write that article and add twenty or more names of historians to back one view every time it says something about Rosas? The article would become unreadable. And perhaps you haven't noticed: every single source in English says that he was a dictator who ruled with terrorist tactics. Why does the overwhelming historical view should be treated with the same weight as a few Revisionist individuals (not forgetting that Cambalachero has failed to provide even one)? --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, you act as if Rosas' life was simply his second term in office. Rosas did various other things, and even his second term in office had other subjects (international wars) beyond his domestic governance.

Not to patronize anyone, but everyone else in the discussion has pretty much proposed the same thing as Binksternet.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is sort of a band-aid. It is often used as a compromise in controverial articles. The ideal article would present all information in the article's voice; because frequently naming & quoting sources is really annoying to readers. ATTRIBUTE POV is an easy solution for editors, but not best for the readers. Even when there is a controversy within the reliable sources, it is best if the encyclopedia use its own voice "Some historians believe ABC, while other believe XYX" (without naming or quoting the sources). That said, it seems like ATTRIBUTEPOV is the best short-term solution to this DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I could understand and accept your proposal if Cambalachero had brought several reliable sources backing his claims. He didn't bring a single one. And perhaps you might not have noticed: Rosas is a controversial character only here at Wikipedia. And that because of Cambalachero and his buddy MarshalN20. I couldn't find any cotronversy about him in all those English-written books. They are all very clear: he was a dictator and a brutal one. --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. If you are correct, that disparity in viewpoint will become apparent quantitatively in the article. E.g. if there are 10 top-quality sources saying "he is a dictator" and only 2 that say "not really" (especially if the two are biased, according to sources). I think the next step is to start filling-in that template text (the grey quote box above) with top-notch reliable, neutral sources, and see where that leads. --Noleander (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, you are worried that we would have to name "twenty or more... historians" every time we want to tell the reader the mainstream viewpoint. That is an exaggeration, I think. There would be just one place where a flood of historians would wash over the reader—the place where Rosas is discussed as a dictator or something else. I think it serves your concern nicely to have an obvious majority of historians telling the reader that Rosas is considered a dictator, with only a couple saying otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether Rosas was or not a dictator isn't the only problem in here. Cambalachero has whitewashed Rosas' reign of terror and killing of thousands, he has removed any mention of Rosas' attempt to annex neighboring countries of Paraguay and Uruguay, or of Rosas cult of personality, etc, etc... I'll have to add twenty or more historians every time, then? As I said before: the controversy exists only in here and because of Cambalachero. The books in English are clear: Rosas was a dictator and a brutal one. --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are points which I do not agree with Cambalachero (except for the dictator part). However, given your past and current history of exaggerating matters, I honestly doubt Cambalachero has behaved with the terrible behavior you describe.

Leaders don't need to be dictators to be brutal.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read John Keane (political theorist) ([24]). Pages 414 and 415 are particularly good. Keane's "caudillo democracy" is a perfect explanation of the complicated Rosas regime. Rosas cannot simply be labeled a "dictator" because his ruling style was a strange mix between democracy and despotism ("Democratic Caesarism"). This is why I keep insisting that the common description of Rosas is as Caudillo. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My first attempt to improve the article was reverted.[25] The file I tried to use has come from a book which says the name of the painter and the portrait's present location (see File:Juan Manuel de Rosas by Descalzi.png). The file that MarshalN20 has kept it's a mess: File:Juan Manuel de Rosas.jpg. Take a look at the file history: several different portraits have been uploaded over that file, which sole source is "Own work". Here I ask to Binksternet and to Noleander: how is someone supposed to improve the article with those two fierce watchdogs around? They will not allow any improvement. The situation is far more serious than you both have realized so far. --Lecen (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your "first attempt" was already discussed long ago ([26]). That image you want to include of Rosas makes him look like an alien.

Please quit the WP:DIVA behavior.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now that I outed his manipulation of sources, Lecen got into an aggresive denial. He is repeating everywhere that "I did not bring sources", when that's what I did most of the time. I will do it once more:

• Manuel Gálvez (founding member of the Argentine Academy of Words, and 3 times candidate to the Nobel prize): "Juan Manuel de Rosas represents the primary love to the Fatherland, the adherence to our own land, the Americanism against the Europeist fervor of the unitarians. He also represents, against the aristocratic tendencies of his enemies, the democracy. This is the truth, like it or not. Juan Manuel de Rosas, in those days, represents the democracy of the gauchos and the pampas, and the democracy of the populace of Buenos Aires". He details how Rosas rejected several honours that the Legislature tried to give him. "Has Rosas despised those supporters? His haughtiness of gaucho, his moral health of man of the contryside, surely dislike the flattery and the fear of his friends. But he does not pretend to be a dictator. He requested and accepted the extraordinary faculties because it was impossible to govern back then without them. He requested them more for precaution than anything else. He barely makes use of them, and we shall see how he returns them". As of 1835, he writes "He couldn't have been such a tyrant when everybody, freely, request his return to power! Rosas has not seized the government. He has been sought, he has been invited. Rich and poor, everybody believes that only him, with his strong arm, can rule. Everybody knows that only he can impose order, destroy the anarchy and reorganize the nation. Everybody knows hat only he has the patriotism and the will of self-sacrifice to futfill the tragic mission announced by the prophetic words of José de San Martín".
• Arturo Jauretche: "Let’s accept that it is the mail of a rancher, but the political platform detailed there is not the platform of a rancher: it is the platform of a national politician who did not cease being a rancher but who does not subject the politics to the ranch. Quite the contrary. For his taste, he would be unitarian and supporter of an aristocratic society, but his county, his Fatherland, does not accept that; that’s no solution for her, and as he sees that the solution is federal and democratic, that’s the solution he chooses"
• Jaime Gálvez (university teacher and member of the Institute of History of the UBA): "Would it be a tyranny? But let’s discuss first what is a tyranny. The ones who studied this topic the most are the classic greeks (note: I skip a long paragraph about greeks, pointless here). The Greek authors find 3 main characteristics of tyranny: foreign help to take government, oppresing tributes towards the people and their properties, and finally, personal wealth and profit as the ultimate motivation. None of those characteristics existed in the March 7 law, voted directly by the people and ratified by their representatives, nor appeared later during the rule of the federal governor"
• Pacho O'Donell, president of the Manuel Dorrego institute: "According to them it was not a bloody tyranny, but a paternalistic autocracy, the closest thing to a democracy (from greek "demokratía", "government of the people"), that national and international circumstances allowed."
• Ernesto Palacio, whose book "History of Argentina" was a huge success in its 4 editions: "This consent of all the people, isn't the most evident proof that there was no such tyranny, as tyrany implies the oppresion of the people and their lack of consent? Actually, Rosas was the opposite of a tyrant, he was a caudillo of the people."

It was pointed that those sources are revisionist. However, I have already included at the begining of the discussion several academic, uninvolved and modern sources that state that revisionism has been accepted and incorporated into the standard academic consensus. It's still called that way merely because of custom, strictly speaking, it is not revisionism anymore. Lecen says that revisionism is not mainstream, but which is his proof of that? He did not bring any source that contradicts the ones I gave. In fact, we are discussing about the historiography rather than the history, and he never brought sources working under that approach. He claims the existence of a consensus by using google hits, not by using reliable references that say, directly and plainly, that there is such consensus.

By the way, modern sources do not usually have the "was not a dictator because..." bit. They simply skip the whole thing. After all, to justify "X was a dictator" is to condemn him, and to justify "X was not a dictator" is to praise him (ultimately it is not a fact of life, but a political opinion). And, as pointed and referenced, Argentine historiography has already grown up from that early stage of needing to set apart heroes and villains: Rosas is not considered as either one, but just as a historical man as all the others, and whose actions are not explained by personal motivations but by geopolitical ones. A good recent example is "Great Biographies of the 200 years: Juan Manuel de Rosas", published by Clarín in 2010 (recent and aimed for the main public): it does not call Rosas a dictator, nor tries to justify him, it's just a "boring" and disappasionated explanation of events. Dorrego does this, Lavalle does this, Rosas does this, Lavalle does this, and so on. Precisely the style that should be used in wikipedia, if you ask me.

As for the file, the source is "own work" (in addition to PD-old for death of the author) because, regardless of the previous versions of the same portrait in the file history, the last one is an actual photo of the physical portrait that I took personally. But don't try to mess the discussion by raising several unrelated topics at the same time, it makes the discussion very confusing.

As for Neolander's proposal at the begin of this subsection, yes, I agree. I don't agree in the detail of skiping the XIX century stuff, Rosas was controversial and had both supporters and detractors even in his day, and that is worth talking about, too. I made a more or less long version of the history of the way that historians have worked with Rosas at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas (it is based in a book about the Historiography of Argentina, extracting from it the info from the paragraphs about historians working in this specific topic). The section at the main article is a summary of the information detailed there; at least that was the angle I used. Cambalachero (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Cambalachero.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the historians brought by Cambalachero (obviously, he gave no pages nor the names of the books):

• Manuel Gálvez (1882-1964) -> obviously, an Argentine nationalist (not to be confused with "patriot")
• Arturo Jauretche (1901-1974) -> another Argentine nationalist
• Ernesto Palacio (1900-1979) -> yet another Argentine nationalist
• Jaime Gálvez (unknown birth and death, books published in the 1950s)
• Pacho O'Donnell (1941-) -> NOT a real historian, but actually a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis

I'm forced to make a few questions: 1) Don't you have any historian you can cite who isn't dead for over forty years? 2) Don't you have any historian who isn't a self-declared revisionist (all of the ones cited are)? 3) Are you aware that the only author you cited who is still alive, Pacho O'Donnell, isn't a historian? In his book "Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial" (2nd edition, 2008) it says that he is a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright. He is not even a real historian. --Lecen (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And now you confuse things with ad-hominem attacks against the authors. For 1 and 2, it seems clear that you have not actually read my last reply: read it again and then reply, I don't like to run in circles. As for 3... you should know better by now. You are LYING about the content of a source for the second time. The small biography of O'Donell at the side of the book you have just read is scanned and available here. Yes, he is a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright... and director of the department of history of the UCES (a university), and secretary of culture of Buenos Aires. More info that you conveniently forgot to mention, right next to the one you cited (so, no room for "Oh, I did not read that part" mistakes). And in any case, you were not so concerned about O'Donell's merits when you cited him (removing parts from his quote to make it seem as supporting your point; but still, you cited him). So? If you think he's not reliable, why did you cite him first in the discussion? If you think he is, why this sudden change? As for the book names and pages, I have already given them elsewhere in the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, after that I'm done here. This kind of behavior is unaceptable. I'll wait for the arbiter's reply and then I'll open a RfC and after that I will request an arbitration. --Lecen (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DIVA alert, again.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Go Phightins

That was quite a bit of reading; I still am not 100% sure I understand the three sides to this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how, based on what I just read (this entire thread, the 3O, and skimming some of the information provided by Cambalachero, haven't gotten to all of it yet), I would summarize this dispute. And just as an FYI, I am not able to read, much less comprehend Spanish, so if that's going to become an issue, another volunteer is needed. Lecen feels (and has provided a couple of sources) that state that Rosas was an oppressive dictator, while Cambalachero and possibly MarshalN20, though I still haven't quite figured out how he fits into this equation yet, think, and have cited several historians which Lecen discounts, that Rosas was a victim dealt a bad hand and consequently fell into authoritarian rule, but at his heart was a good guy. Lecen discounts that calling it historical revisionism. If this is inaccurate, please, each of you in 300 words or less, state how that interpretation is incorrect and state your desired outcome. As a sidenote, however, it seems to me that no matter what happens here, Lecen is inclined to go further down the dispute resolution process to an RfC and then to Arbitration. I would ask all of you, then, are we doing ourselves any good here? If each of you honestly think we can hammer out an agreement, than I am more than willing to help facilitate that, but if this is just a pit stop enroute to an eventual arbitration, what good is this discussion doing? Go Phightins! 02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I consider myself a third party to the dispute, which is between Lecen and Cambalachero. Lecen is the one accusing me of partnering up with Cambalachero, simply because I tend to mostly agree with Cambalachero's perspective on the subject.

My view (and possibly also Cambalachero's view) is not that Rosas was a victim. Instead, I would like for the article to present a balanced view of the man. Balanced in the sense that Rosas should not be labeled a dictator for his authoritarian behavior during his second term as Governor of Buenos Aires. I would like for the article to label Rosas (from an encyclopedic voice) as a caudillo, which is the historical term most widely accepted by historians (both those who support and oppose Rosas).

Lecen wants us to believe that Rosas was the spawn of Satan. I disagree, based on my prior knowledge as well as by the sources presented by Cambalachero.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't be a third party when you already know the other two parties. Not only you know both me and Cambalachero but you sided with him in other issues. Thus, in case you are unnable to understand, you are not allowed to act as third party. --Lecen (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I know you so much that the theme song to our Wiki-encounters is Why Can't We Be Friends?.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are as follows: the policies and/or guidelines that need to be considered are:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
• WP:LABEL
• WP:OR

Are there any other Wikipedia guidelines that any of you feel need to be considered in this discussion? I think it violates all four of those to label Rosas as a dictator using the encyclopedias voice...we don't even flat-out call Joseph Stalin a dictator. I tend to agree with MarshalN20 that we need to present Rosas in a balanced manner, and for that reason, I will not support the word "dictator" being used from the encyclopedia's voice under any circumstances in the article. To me, it seems that "caudillo" is an accurate, though not inflammatory, term from a historical perspective. I have read pages 414-15 in the book provided by MN20, which seems like a pretty solid source in this case. As mentioned earlier, my knowledge of Spanish is limited to a few classes in school, so I cannot read, nor interpret, Spanish unless it is extraordinarily basic... thus, I cannot translate the biography on O'Donnell provided to me on my talk page. That brings up another thing, let's keep all discussion related to this on this page and off my talk page. I would like this to be fully transparent. Go Phightins! 20:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, Lecen, of what relevance is it that a historian has been dead for 40 years. How does that invalidate his historical perspective? Go Phightins! 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"...I will not support the word "dictator" being used from the encyclopedia's voice under any circumstances in the article." In that case I have no need to waste my or your time anymore. Thank you for your help. --Lecen (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but based on the aforementioned policies and the fact that different historians view it different ways, I cannot justify how that would be appropriate. Why do you discount the conflicting opinions provided by others? Go Phightins! 20:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Because they aren't reliable. Simple like that. You said you read everything I said. Then you migh have seen a few small facts about Rosas:

1) Rosas self-given title was "Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria" ("Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland").[27][28] That was this official title.

2) Rosas was a strong advocate of dictatorship as the ideal model of government. He said once: "I have always admired autocratic dictators who have been the first servants of their people. That is my great title: I have always sought to serve the contry". (Lynch, 2001, p.163) He regarded the dictatorship as best form of government: "For me the ideal of good government would be paternal autocracy, intelligent, desinterested and indefatigabl(Lynch, 2001, p.75)

3) A passage of Lynch's books is revealing: "In short, Rosas was an absolute ruler. 'As he told himself', remarked the British minister Southern, 'he wields a power more absolute than any monarch on his throne.'" (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

As you can see Rosas regarded himself a dictator, believed in dictatorship and never had trouble bragging about it. --Lecen (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, well, just because one regards oneself as something doesn't necessarily make himself said thing. Additionally, others have apparently disagreed with this characterization, per what sources were provided by the other two involved parties. Do you object to the term caudillo being used to characterize Rosas? Go Phightins! 21:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Caudillo doesn't mean "dictator". This is a Spanish word used to describe powerful landlords who used their workers as private armies. Some of them became powerful enough to rule provinces, like Justo José de Urquiza, others managed to rule an entire country, which is the case of Rosas. Rosas was both a caudillo and dictator. But one thing does not have the same meaning as the other. And maybe you haven't noticed so far bout I brought sources that can be easily found. Cambalachero merely gave the names of a few people dead for over 40 years, but did not tell from which books, or pages or the years in which they were published. I'll repeat again: if you want it, I can show why Argentine revisionism isn't reliable nor legitimate as source. --Lecen (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again: I can explain in a simple and straightfoward way (300 words or less), and with sources, why Revisionism is not a legitimate source and thus why Cambalachero's arguments can not be taken in account. --Lecen (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the terms aren't synonymous; I am asking if you would stipulate that Rosas was a caudillo, as that seems to be the most neutral terminology we've come up with thus far. And as an aside, I think that autocratic is more neutral than dictator. In any case, what is your opinion on Gaba p's proposed phrasing? Go Phightins! 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

What if in the "criticism and historical perspective" section, we added a sentence similar to the following: Though historians disagree as to whether Rosas was a dictator or a victim of circumstance, most agree that he was a caudillo. If necessary, it could be modified to say "Historians x and y view Rosas as a dictator while historians a and b view him as a victim of circumstance" or whatever else. At this point, I'm not sure how else this can end. Unfortunately, I think that the DR process may progress unless we can agree to the aforementioned proposal. Go Phightins! 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't accept that. You're giving undue weight for the Revisionism school. Does the article about Holocaust says that "According to some historians 6 million Jews were killed while others believe that no one died"? And I don't agree with your view about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I will paste here what Neloander said: "Regarding your comment: The question of whether Rosas was democratic or authoritarian is subject to personal POV, and therefore should follow the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ... that is not accurate. If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority." --Lecen (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ow, and if you want to, I may show you why Argentine revisionism is unreliable and cannot be used as legitimate sources in here. --Lecen (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "A minority of historians, following historical revisionism, regard Rosas not as a dictator but as a victim of circumstance. Most agree that he was a caudillo." And source it to all historians who don't regard Rosas as a dictator? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Just to interject here, three things. First, the correct translation of the last word in Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria is not "fatherland", which gives it an ever more negative connotation. "Patria" can be best translated as "homeland", but it would definitely not be translated as "fatherland" by any competent Spanish-English translator. I point this out because it might come across as a bit of weasel wording, and it seems you guys are down to nitpicking letters. Second, caudillo does not mean dictator, however, it does carry a negative connotation depending on the country, period of time and person to whom it is being applied. So that's kind of complicated in its own right. I am not sure exactly if this particular usage would be considered negative. And finally, dispute resolution is not about ending up with the version you want, it's about ending up with the version everybody can live with, which incorporates all viewpoints as long as they originate from reliable sources and do not present undue weight one way or another. After reading through this discussion, I feel the editors involved here have forgotten or chosen to ignore that. If that's the case then no amount of arbitration is going to help, and if this goes any further up the pole you all might find yourselves with the version nobody wanted. Just food for thought. And if any of the editors attempting to assist the dispute require translation services from an uninvolved entity, please let me know and I'll be glad to help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, caudillo does not mean dictator. As applied to Rosas, it reflects a period of Latin American political history known as the "Era of Caudillismo" (see [29]; see also [30]). With this in mind, the term "caudillo" is correctly applied.

That being said, I agree with your other points. However, I'd like to add that the omission of important text and biased translation of text by Lecen is worrisome.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Lecen

First and most importantly is to find out which sources are reliable and generally accepted. The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica (and it's used by Britannica as its main source).[31] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[32] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[33] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[34]

Now let's take a look at what books about Argentina have been saying for the past 20 years (by order in which they were published). Note: All of these books may be found easily at Google books and they are all for sale at Amazon .

• "Buenos Aires hastened to renominate Rosas as governor. He requested and received renewed dictatorial authority, investing him with the 'plenitude of the public power' (suma del poder público)"; "Throughout the Rosas years... the government made liberal use of terror and assassination. Scores of its opponents perished by throat-cutting at the hands of the mazorca." Source: page 106 of Rock, David. Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987 ISBN 0-520-06178-0
• "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator who dominated Argentine politics from 1829 to 1852."; "More sinister was Rosas' increasing use of terror and violence to impose his will." Source: pages 113 and 120 of Shumay, Nicolas. The Invention of Argentina. Los Angeles: University of Californa Press, 1993 ISBN 0-520-08284-2
• "It was no ordinary election, for the new governor was given dictatorial powers..."; "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies, to discipline dissidents..." Source: pages 20 and 29 of Bethell, Leslie. Argentina since independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 ISBN 0-521-43376-2
• "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government to eliminate enemies..." (page 96) "Rosas was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree." (page 118) Source: Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. 2 ed. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2001 ISBN 0-8420-2897-8
• "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..." and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance." Source: pages 47 and 57 of Lewis, Daniel K. The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 1-4039-6254-5
• f) "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country." Source: page 27 of Link, Theodore; Rose McCarthy. Argentina: A Primary Source Cultural Guide. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. ISBN 0-8239-3997-9
• "The first, written by Rosas himself, shows an angry dictator using force and terror to impose his authority."; "Politicaly, the nineteenth century was the age of the caudillo, a term best translated as 'Latin American dictator'." Source: pages 72 and 73 of Clayton, Lawrence A.; Michael L. Conniff. A History of Modern Latin America. 2nd Ed. Belmont, California: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center, 2005 ISBN 0-534-62158-9
• "Rosas was elected governor of the province of Buenos Aires in 1829, putting in place an authoritarian regime (and repressing political opponents) ... Rosas used the opportunity to build a powerful dictatorial regime. Backed by the army and hos own police force (the mazorca), Rosas managed to hold power until 1852." Source: page 28 of Edwards, Todd L. Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2008 ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3

Now let's take a look at what other works published in English have to say about Rosas (by order in which they were published):

• "In Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas established his personalist dictatorship, with Dorrego dead and San Martín and Rivadavia in exile." Source: page 160 of Seckinger, Ron. The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republics, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1984 ISBN 0-8071-1156-2
• "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..." Source: page 487 of Marley, David. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1998. ISBN 0-87436-837-5
• "This group was headed by Rosas, who became dictator of Buenos Aires, and effectively of the whole country. for most of the period between 1829 and 1852. His was a brutal reign in which he asserted..." Source: page 16 of Leuchars, Chris (2002). To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32365-8
• "In Buenos Aires, Rosas demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca." Source: page 53 of Whigham, Thomas L. (2002). The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-4786-4
• "Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina since the 1830s as caudillo of Buenos Aires, its richest province and its major port..." Source: page 121 of Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5369-2
• "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country." Source: page 27 of Saeger, James Schofield. Francisco Solano López and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Estover Road, Plymoth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. ISBN 0-7425-3754-4
• "Rosas was re-elected as Governor on 13 April, this time with dictatorial powers ... Rosas would reign supreme in Argentina thereafter until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 creating a secret police force named the Mazorca which punished disloyalty by means of state terrorism. Its most notorious acts were committed during the months of April and May 1842, when, if contemporary accounts are true, the streets of the capital were awash with blood..." Source: page 15 of Hooker, Terry D. (2008). The Paraguayan War. Nottingham: Foundry Books. ISBN 1-901543-15-3

This is not about two different views regarding Rosas that have the same weight. It isn't. Historians regard him not only a dictator, but one who ruled through Terrorism, or more precisely, State terrorism. What has happened is that Cambalachero (backed by MarshalN20) has been whitewashing Rosas' article (See here). He has used works which are regarded in Argentina as "Revisionism" and thus they do not represent the mainstream view about Rosas. Revisionism in Argentina is the product of nationalists and are closely tied to Argentine contemporary politics. It doesn't belong in here. There are two works in English about the Argentine revisionism and its relation to Rosas: [35][36] I'm going to make it short: Argentine Revisionism is the equivalent to Holocaust denial. It is the work of hard wing historians and politicians who are xenophobic and support authoritarian governments. It can not be treated merely as an "alternative view" nor as a "secondary opinion" regarding Rosas. It must be explicitly warned about what it is and what is it's goal. --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

lol. Holocaust denial? Hello Godwin's law.

Also, how on Earth is this 300 words or less?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, I want a summary, not a regurgitation of everything you've said thus far. 300 words was arbitrary and flexible, but not this flexible... at the very least I need <500. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You said that I "provided a couple of sources" while Cambalachero "cited several historians". That is incorrect. Now you claim that I wrote a "a regurgitation of everything" I "said thus far". Also incorrect. All these soures cited can be found in Juan Manuel de Rosas talk page, not in here. How do you expect me to prove that I'm correct if I'm not allowed to show sources? Do you expect me or Cambalachero to prove our points of views with "300 words or less"? How is that? Do you want me to say what? That "Historians have said that Rosas is a dictator, anything contrary to that is Revisionism"? What is the value of that claim if there are no sources to validate it? If you had read the thread you would have noticed that Noleander (the neutral editor who volunteered when I requested for a third opinion) had complained that Cambalachero had ignored in five different moments his request to show sources to prove his claim. When he finally did bring, he didn't say which pages, which books, nor when they were published. He brought quotations from people who have been dead for over 40 years. The only one who is alive isn't a real historian, anyway. And then I spend time trying to show why my sources are reliable and you say that it's more of the same when I hadn't brought any of them here yet? Do you want me to be straightfoward? I'll be: Every single book written in English about Juan Manuel de Rosas or Argentina or something related to both say that he was a terrorist dictator. Anything contrary to that is Historical revisionism (negationism) akin to Holocaust denial and Nanking Massacre denial. --Lecen (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All I said was that if what I'd posted up there was incorrect, to re-summarize your thoughts in a few hundred words. I have read, and will read again, everything you've posted thus far. Go Phightins! 20:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In my intitial review of the subject I noticed something and decided to check out the discussion on the talkpage more closely. I am not finished reviewing the information and sources and may not do a coplete review, however my intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked. The author, John Lynch may have made the statement used but he was certainly not attempting to paint the figure in a particular manner. In fact, in his preface Lynch also states that, in letters from Charles Darwin, who met him on campaign (not the political kind) said Rosas was "a man of extraordinary character".

I think it best if these sources are checked for balance. I have no doubt that Rosas was percieved as a dictator who used state terrorism, however I also note that John Charles Chasteen mentions the fact that the some Argentine liberal intellectuals used writing to infuence a change in the Argentine people and were influenced by European things as well as liberalism's link to "written culture" that went further than the "customary liberal faith in Progress" (Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America p 165). I get a feeling that the subject is not being treated in a disinterested manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be very, very careful before accusing me of bad faith, Amadscientist. This is what John Lynch said:

"More than one English visitor remarked on his country style, his ruddy countenance and stout figure: 'In appearance Ross resembles an English gentleman farmer-his—his manners are courteous without being refined. He is affable and aggreable in conversation, which however nearly always turns on himself, but his tone is pleasant and agreeable enough. His memory is stupendous: and his accuracy in all points of detail never failing.' One of his secretariat reported: 'This tiger [Rosas] is very tame towards his immediate servants'; but he was a hard taskmaster and could fly into a rage and emit threats of throat cutting like the vilest of his henchmen." (Lynch, 86)

Amadscientist, I believe you should apologize for you accusation against me. --Lecen (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

First, there was no accusation of bad faith. Second, you will recieve no apology. Your comment left on the Argentine WikiProject was not neutral and was itself an accusation against the other editor [37] for which YOU should apologise.

I recommend the closing of this dispute and that the next logical course be formal mediation.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by MarshalN20

Funny how you decided to use the "negationism" wikilink instead of Historical revisionism. Revisions in history happen all the time.

You are also taking advantage of the term "revisionism" to confuse Good Faith editors who know little of Rosas. As Cambalachero has explained time and again, Rosist Revisionism is not the regular kind of revisionism, because "good opinions" about Rosas have existed for the same amount of time as the "bad opinions". That the latter gained an upper hand, as a result of Rosas' political opponents gaining control of the country after his fall from power, is what made the "good opinions" into revisionism (and the title has stuck with them since then).

It's also interesting how you ignore a source such as John Keane, whose analysis of "caudillo democracy" provides a fairly balanced view of Rosas' second term in office, which he considers a mixture between authoritarianism and democracy ("Democratic Caesarism"). Such is the complexity of caudillos, Rosas being one of the finest example of a whole "Era of Caudillismo" in Latin America (see Spanish Wikipedia's entry for "Caudillo" to see the long list of Caudillos: [38]).

Lecen, your negationism of these facts is astounding.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero

When I said that the former revisionism has already been accepted and incorporated into the standard academic view, I provided sources for that. Lecen says that all English-speaking historians call him a dictator, but this conclusion is based in google hits for specific terms, not in actual authors discussing that particular point (the view of English-speaking historians about Rosas, taken as an isolated group apart from Argentine ones), so his conclusion is basically original research. I already pointed at the article talk page that several of those google hits are flawed (mere passing-by comments in books of wider or unrelated topics, with no rationale for the term, and even from authors with a visible lack of knowledge of the topic); still, he shows then here again to try to impress others with mere numbers. I pointed as well how me made outright lies first about a quote (removing a part that changes the meaning) and then about the antecedents of an author; he did not deny his lies, he simply tries to let them go unnoticed beneath mountains of text... and even repeats them back, hoping perhaps that nobody noticed.

As for the comparison with holocaust denial (a pathetic attempt to play the nazi card), historical denial is the denial of facts. The conclusions taken from those facts (in the cases of historians who want to take such conclusions) are a secondary thing, and ultimately unimportant. In the case of Rosas: what things he could do, what things he could not do, how did he become governor, which events took place by then, those are the historical facts. Considering all that information, was Rosas a dictator? The answer, either a "yes" or a "no", is an opinion (an opinion with more or less acceptance, but an opinion nonetheless). Initially, the answer was a "yes" in most cases. The revisionists of the 1930s began to say "no". With political motivations? Perhaps, but that's not what is really important: the really important thing for the academics is if their works are based in documentation, or just as mere essays. Yes, they provided it, loads of documentation that was unknown or ignored before. That's why revisionism has been accepted, for the added documentation. So... was Rosas a dictator? With the modern knowledge of the time period, with both the documented information known from the begining and those uncovered since the 1930s, the answer is: it depends on who you ask it to. For that reason, most modern authors do not reply the question, but just list the facts and let the reader think what he wants. Other, like Pacho O'Donell, still like to write both the information and their personal conclusions.

The nazi card can also be replied with simpler information that anyone can understand: is there any chance that Hitler may appear in modern German currency, or have a monument in Berlin, or an associated national day? Because Rosas does have all those in Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And another detail. Lecen has opened this discussion, but has not been really clear in what does he exactly want (meaning, which is specifically the paragraph or section that he wants to change and in which manner). MarshalN20 has pointed that, and got no response. Let me clarify this detail. A month ago, at the military history wikiproject, he wrote this, and let me cite: " I will write the article alone. What I need are editors interested in the subject, willing to read about it and to help me out with any unnecessary meddling." In other words, what Lecen is really requesting here is article ownership, a blank check to have the article under his control and exempted from finding consensus in edits that he knows that will' be controversial. Cambalachero (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to advise you to back off a little bit. This is the second time that you've made rather serious allegations/accusations against Lecen and whether or not they're true, they are hardly relevant to this discussion regarding how we should characterize Rojas. You are welcome to use other forms of the dispute resolution process if you wish against Lecen, but I would request that you not bring them up again in this discussion. Thank you. Go Phightins! 22:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If my goal was to own the article I wouldn't have asked for the help of others, would I? When I said I would "write the article alone" I wanted to calm down others who could have been interested on giving their opinions or sharing ideas but were unwilling to take the burden of writing an article. --Lecen (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept the point. I will not talk about Lecen as a user, merely about the main topic. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I also think that Cambalachero's accusations are not apropriate, but they are more of a response to Lecen's personal attacks and mockery of several contributors to this discussion. Please see: [39]. Please everyone, remember Wikipedia:Etiquette.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What may help

I recently helped mediate a discussion at the Falkland Islands page. What helped in that discussion was the usage of a sandbox, where all users (including mediator and commentators) got to see what exactly the "involved" users wanted to change in the article. In this Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion, all our focus has been on an abstract concept, with little hands-on work. Noleander and Phightins have suggested to get something more concrete in the article, but up to now Lecen refuses to even explain what exactly he wants to change in the article. I think the mediator must impose, rather than suggest, that Lecen present what he wants to do in the article (at least in a specific section, of his own chosing). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Argentine revisionism

The Argentine revisionism is the historiographic wing of a political movement known as "nationalism". The nationalism became a powerful movement in the 1930s and it's the Argentine equivalent (but not identical) to German Nazism, Italian Facism, Brazilian Integralism, etc, etc... As it happened in those countries, the Argentine nationalists also had it's own ideologues and intelectuals. In the history field they had the revisionists who attempted to rewrite history according to their own goals. That's how "Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina's most brutal politician of the nineteenth century, can be reinvented as a symbol of patriotic resistance to foreign oppression..." (Johnson, page 13). There are two works in English that deal with the Argentine nationalists (including their historiographic wing, the revisionism) and their attempt into turning Rosas from a reviled dictator to a national hero:

• Johnson, Lyman L. Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press, 2004 ISBN 0-8263-3200-5 (see Chapter 4: "Sometimes knowing how to forget is also having memory": the repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas and the healing of Argentina)
• Rock, David. Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1995 ISBN 0-520-20352-6

Both works call Rosas a dictator. "Whereas Perón had supported the return of nineteenth-century dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas's body to Argentina." (Johnson, p.254) "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they whished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." (emphasis mine; Rock, p.119)

David Rock (page 108) said: "The streak of destructive nihilism in the attitudes of the Nationalists further evoked the Fascists. In 1935, Federico Ibarguren... believed , the only solution to 'anarchy' was dictatorship: 'Today we live... the prologue to another anarchy [like that in the 1820s]... Therefore when society has passed into definitive crisis, another Rosas will have to take power and impose order, but this time with machine guns, planes and bombs. And the liberals will tremble!'"

Rock also said soon after on the same page: "Rosas, the revisionists claimed, had supported the powers and privileges of the church while both excluding Protestants and Jews."

Both books (which can be found on Google books) go on explaining the authoritarian projects of the Nationalists (and their intelectual wing, the Revisionism). Does Wikipedia uses Mein Kampf as source regarding Germany's history or Jews' history? No. And for obvious reasons. That's what I have been trying to tell all along. That's why Cambalachero has picked five authors (whom he didn't revealed what were their books, which pages he used, etc...) who are dead for over 40 years. Those people are the Argentine equivalent to Fascists. They do not represent mainstream historiograph, they are not a legitimate "alternative view". I have been showing every single book published in English in here, showing that every single author regards Rosas a dictator. Books, books, books and books. All of them widely used as sources. Here I ask: why Cambalachero has consciously used books written by Argentine Fascists who died over 40 years ago and has ignored all other books written by mainstream historians? Why? With what purpose? To me the answer is quite obvious. That bullshit that Rosas ruled as somekind of paternal autocrat which is somehow a democracy (????!!!!!) is Revisionism/Nationalist crap. That can not be taken even as a second opinion. That may be presented in the Legacy section and nothing more. --Lecen (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What you argue simly doesn't make sense with the events in Rosas' life. Nobody is denying that Rosas had authoritarian tendencies, a brutal way to deal with opponents, and (when given the opportunity) ruled as he wanted.

However, you completely ignore the fact that Rosas was also highly democratic, which is described by various historians. In fact, Rosas carried out his first time to the letter, even refusing to run for a second one despite overwhelming popular support.

You also ignore the fact that Rosas was part of a political trend, the Era of Caudillos (Caudillismo), and try to dismiss it despite I showed that Google Books results largely favor the description of Rosas as a "textbook caudillo".

Yet, Lecen, you keep trying to make everyone come to terms with just one side of Rosas.

The fact that "revisionists" found other, more pleasant, sides to this man does not make them incorrect or "whitewashers" (as you like to call them).

Rosas was not a hero, nor a savior.

Rosas was not the Spawn of Satan.

Rosas was human.

That's what the article needs to reflect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ow, God... uuurgh... --Lecen (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have worked about this topic at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas, based on a book by Fernando Devoto, hardly a revisionist, and with much closer and detailed knowledge of this whole topic than those foreign authors. There are many flaws in Lecen's proposals.

• First, a self-evident truth: right-wing and nationalism is one thing, fascism is another. Mixing terms as if it was all the same is highly controversial. Merely supporting a strong and by-the-book policy does not turn someone into a fascist, even when their domestic opposers like to misuse the term that way. Are US Republicans fascists?
• In fact, how did this "fascism" actually manifested? Who of them made a public support of Hitler, or Franco?
• Revisionists were not an homogeneous group, and did not have homogeneous views. There are topics, like the similarity or difference of Rivadavia and Rosas, or the political significance of Caseros, that divided them.
• Neither do they had an homogeneous view in modern politics, as their varied reactions towards peronism clearly show. In fact, the books cited by Lecen may not detail it because it goes beyond their topic, but there were both right-wing revisionists as Irazustra (who focused on Rosas' interest in order and strict application of the law) and left-wing revisionists as Pepe Rosa (who focused on Rosas' character as a "man of the people").
• And in any case, the point here is not if we like revisionists or not, or if we like Rosas or not for that matter. The point is: is revisionism currently accepted by the standard academy, or not? I cited, when this discussion began, several authors who said it is accepted. I have read a very long portion of "Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America", and I did not find any denial. Johnson also says, in page 105: "Accompanying Rosas' descendats were the descendants of many of Rosas' enemies from the XIX century. Even though their ancestor detested, killed and exiled each other, these families walked toguether as a symbol of national unification in 1989". Pages 92-120 of Rock's book are not available in the preview, so I can't check the context, and I can't analyse mere quotes. Still, given the topic of the book, I suspect he will stay focused in the 1930 context, and don't answer us which is the academic consensus in 2013. Cambalachero (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend closure

All right guys, this has escalated to the point that I don't think this discussion is of any use and would second Amadscientist's recommendation that you seek a formal mediation. The sides are too far apart and, based on what I've seen, are unwilling to compromise. Therefore, I would recommend that at this point, this discussion be closed and that you move along the dispute resolution process. As for the user conduct exhibited in this discussion as well as prior ones on this topic, I think you all need to step back and remember to assume good faith, remain civil, and comment on the content, not the contributors. There's enough misconduct to go around, so we need not name names, but at this point, I think this discussion is serving as nothing other than a means for additional mudslinging, misrepresentation, and frustration for all parties. There have been three, by my count, compromise proposals, none of which have been accepted by any of the parties, therefore, I am out of options as a volunteer here as I cannot see a way out of this debacle short of a formal mediation, which is what at this time I would recommend you seek. Thank you all for your time and effort, but this situation is beyond handling at this venue. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Phightins. I agree with your recommendation. This whole thing is getting out of hand. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I will be away from the computer for the next 24 hours or so, so if when I come back, there is no objection, I will close this case. If someone else wants to, they may do so. Go Phightins! 20:35, 11 January 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.