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?

The article's eligibility has been discussed on the AFD page

Location of dispute

• Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Frietjes (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article was nominated for deletion a week ago and was closed today. However, the closure has been disputed by Frietjes (talk · contribs) and I am filing this in case she feels the article is notable. I suspect this user may be Francesca herself trying to keep her own article or an avid Survivor fan trying to keep the article in spite of consensus that the article fails notability standards

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We redirected the article to a list of all the contestants but we know this user will attempt to reopen the WP:AFD discussion

How do you think we can help?

Explain to this user that not all people are notable enough to have their own articles and that anonymous IP voters are entitled to share their opinion as much as logged in users are

Opening comments by Freitjes

• The AfD was closed as no consensus, so redirecting Francesca Hogi is inappropriate. Frietjes (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Francesca Hogi discussion

Hi, I'm Carrie, and I'm a DRN volunteer. *What exactly is the dispute? The AfD was closed as no consensus, so the article hasn't been and shouldn't be deleted. CarrieVS (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC) My mistake, I didn't examine the article history.

The AfD was closed as no consensus - the previous closures did not meet the criteria in WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures, so the final closure by an administrator should stand - so the article should not be redireced unless a future discussion results in a consensus to do so (the closing comments included a suggestion that the article be relisted in a month's time, so if you still feel it should be redirected, I suggest you wait and do that). CarrieVS (talk) 21:59, 27 February 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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• GB fan (talk · contribs)
• Peter James (talk · contribs)
• Whpq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Users and anonymous IP addresses wheel warring of closure of this discussion

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Decide whether or not the discussion should continue. There is no consensus to keep or delete

How do you think we can help?

Reach a conclusion that everyone can agree on

Opening comments by GB fan

This dispute is real simple. An IP closed the AFD as no-consensus after it had been open for only ~3 days and 11 hours. This is less than 1/2 the normal 7 day period for an AFD. I reopened it and multiple different IP addresses have reclosed it. The essay on non-admin closures discusses when it is appropriate for non-admins to close AFDs. It says that non-admins can close AFDs that have run for the full seven days as no-consensus if there is little or no discussion. This AFD is seeing quite a bit of discussion and it was ongoing at the time of closure. The IP stated in their filing of this dispute that they had tried discussing this on a talk page. They do not specify what talk page, the AFD talk page is still a redlink and there is no discussion on the article's talk page. I see no reason for dispute resolution at this time. There is only one answer to this dispute, let the AFD run for seven days and then an uninvolved admin can close the AFD as they read the consensus. GB fan 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Peter James

Opening comments by Whpq

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira 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

• Lists of tropical cyclone names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)
• Jason Rees (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Every six years the national weather service uses the same names for hurricanes and typhoons with a few exceptions. We've attempted to turn over the 2012 list a few times given 2012 season has officially ended. But two users have been persisantly disputing the changes claiming it was original research. In addition they keep intentially spelling the names wrong. Each time we correct they keep reverting to the version with many names poorly spelled

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've explained the 2012 season is over but they've insisted their changes are right and that every year anew set of names is created each year.

How do you think we can help?

Come up with a compromise

Opening comments by Hurricanehink

[1] - the National Hurricane Center has not updated the list for 2018 yet, and the names that were there are correct. I protected the page since the anon kept changin be names incorrectly (like Bret to Brett). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jason Rees

Our list of tropical cyclone names is imo the most accurate list of tropical cyclone names around as it trumps the WMO list of names and we do not add the list of names until we have a source telling us what the names are. While it is true that the names for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons rotate every six years, it could be that the WMO decides to add a new list of names or completely change the naming scheme like they did in 2008 with the Australian region list of names. It is also worth noting that the IP is changing the names to what they think is the correct spelling of the name rather than what is the official spelling of the name. I oppose any addition of the names for 2018 until the lists are put out by the NHC/WMO due to the rules on Original Research.Jason Rees (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of tropical cyclone names discussion

Who filed this?

Who is 174.226.4.31? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Would you consider adding the rotated 2012 names for 2018, under a description stating something like "The following names are predicted based on WMO's system of repeating hurricane names every 6 years". The description probable needs some clean up, but would either of you be ok with that? — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see the reason, since the same could be said for 2019, 2020, etc. Not to mention, the NHC still lists only the 2012 list (not 2018). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont personally see the need to include the predicted 2018 names just yet since it is Original Research and due to the fact that we are not here to predict which names will be removed at this years Hurricane Committee in April. Personally i dont see the need to remove the 2012 names just yet and add in the 2018 names as some people might be curious to see what names were used last year still and it would lead to more problems with people marking Sandy as retired since we have the outside chance of it becoming like Gordon 1994 and not being retired.Jason Rees (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a DRN volunteer. This doesn't mean I have any special privileges or the power to enforce any decisions, but I will try and help you come to an agreement. I have a couple of questions:

• What has been the usual practice in the past when a season ends but the names for six years on haven't been released? (NB: I'm not saying that it must be done as it has been in the past, but if there is an accepted 'usual' practice, we should do that unless consensus emerges for a change.)
• Can we find a source for the prediction of the 2018 names, or is it a prediction by editors based on the 2012 names and the fact that they are usually repeated? CarrieVS (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • From what i can tell we have generally waited until the lists have been released (with the retired names) before updating it, however there will be some random websites out there that will have the 2018 names on them even though they are not available yet based on the fact that the list of names will be used again in 2018.Jason Rees (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see we have three options:

1. Leave the 2012 names up until the 2018 list is released.
2. Remove the 2012 names and add the predicted 2018 list.
3. Remove the 2012 names but do not add the predicted 2018 list.

• 3 has a big disadvantage in that it removes the sixth list of names entirely.
• 2 would be WP:synthesis unless we have a reliable source for the prediction. If someone finds one, then we could discuss whether or not to do this.
• I would suggest 1, but with the addition of a sentence (either below the table or perhaps in a seventh row headed '2018') saying that the 2018 names have not yet been released. The paragraph immediately above the table says that the names are rotated, so readers may deduce for themselves that the 2018 names will probably be the same as the 2012 list. If we can source it, we could potentially include a mention of names which are expected to be retired.

How does that sound? CarrieVS (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• remove the 2O12 names and add the 2018 list without the predicted names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.206 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no 2018 list without predicted names. The entire 2018 list is only a prediction. (Have edited my above comment to clarify). CarrieVS (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That is true. They could very well issue a totally different set of names for 2018. I agree with #1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We seem to only have one side of the dispute participating. I'm going to give this 24 hours more, and if there's no response from IP 174... after that time, I will close this case. CarrieVS (talk) 21:39, 3 March 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

• List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Senor Taichi (talk · contribs)
• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article is an episode list of a live action TV show. Content dispute is on the summaries of the first four episodes (or the fifth summary) since Favre1fan93 keeps adding his own version even though this episode has not yet aired.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I removed any futures summaries that may be considered "original research" telling Ryulong to act civilly

How do you think we can help?

Users should respect others and not dismiss every edit they don't agree with as "original research"

Opening comments by Ryulong

Jesus christ the summaries for upcoming episodes are based on TV Guide/Zap2it listings. If anything Senor Taichi is the one who is violating WP:OR by posting this content. Senor Taichi is constantly violating WP:OR by adding content that is not stated outright by the television show, and also violating WP:COPYVIO by copying summaries from TV guide websites (such as Zap2it). He is being told by Favre1fan93 and myself that he is incorrect, and reporting on us here in an attempt to get his way, such as claiming that the addition of a one sentence summary for the fifth episode, which has not yet aired but uses Zap2it as the source, is a violation of WP:OR. At this point he should just be blocked for disruption.

Again, no attempt was made at resolving this on the talk page and Senor Taichi is just trying to slog everything through Wikimedia process for no reason (he was the IP who previously posted here concerning a line that I removed from the page).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Favre1fan93

Ugh. Okay. So basically everything that Ryulong said is what I would have said here in some extent. As Senor Taichi stated above that we should "not dismiss every edit [we] don't agree with as "original research" ", the only reason he was being dismissed so many times, as Ryulong said, was because his edits were OR. Before his edits, I add added new episode titles that were sourced by Zap2It as well as one future episode summary (more on this in a bit). Senor Taichi went on to change a properly sourced title to one that he could not provide a new, valid source for, saying that his version was right and not OR.

As for the future episode summary, the title source (usually from a press release), can be used as a guideline for the short summary. However, you can not copy word-for-word, as Senor Taichi did, less it be WP:COPYVIO. The summary must express what the episode will be about, with out using the exact words from the source. The official short summary is: "[redacted, view here]" while the one added is "The Warstar monster Beezara uses her powers to turn Gia and Emma against each other and the boys into her loyal drones." Just a simple sentence or two to say what the episode will be about before a more lengthy summary can be added after it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes discussion

View by Nerdfighter

This really shouldn't be on this noticeboard. Adding summaries for shows that have not aired is vandalism. Please warn the user starting at level one, each time he vandalises. If he vandalises past 4 warnings he may be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks. — nerdfighter^(academy) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I got something mixed up.

I am not so sure you are correct about that Nerd. I will look further, but for now we should not be advising editors that this is indeed vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism:"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." This is too soon, could be less than accurate and is possibly innapropriate, but it is not vandalism.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that Senior Taichi is currently blocked for 72 hours for issues unrelated to this matter, so if discussion is going to continue, it will have to wait for her/his return. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We should just shut it down he was spurriously bringing this half-dispute here just to get someone on his side because two editors kept telling him he was violating policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I got something mixed up. I was under the impression that a user added summaries for episodes that have never aired. I will be more careful next time I respond to a discussion like this. Please forgive me :) — nerdfighter^(academy) 02:19, 28 February 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.

---

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 page of Culture of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dravidianhero (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is original research in the 2nd paragraph of the lede section.

I agree with the other party that Indian culture is very diverse, and the main article provides ample support for this view.

The issue: The user Dravidianhero has injected into the lede, his opinions on "why" and how many such cultural variations exist. The sources he just cited, do not support the sweeping conclusions such as "evolved mainly..." and "largely independent of foreign...". The cited sources additionally do not support the claim in the lede's 2nd para of "two major subcultural variations". The main article has no discussion about this either.

Dravidianhero claims the content he added is very well backed by the sources he added over the last few days.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None other than the discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate if the community members can check the sources in the 2nd para of the lede, and advise if they back the following:

[1] There are "two" major subcultural variations within India [2] Why these variations "mainly evolved" [3] Whether the culture of South India developed largely independent of foreign influences

Opening comments by Dravidianhero

Talk page of Culture of India 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

• List of wars involving the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
• Benlisquare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Here's the edit, that i want to be there:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=542191909&oldid=542191866

As it's clear, that Soviet Union's troops were involved in Korean War. And the wars like Chola incident, Sino-Soviet border conflict should be considered as well.

But a person is reverting these edits by calling "they are not wars". As per this page :- Template:PRC_conflicts, only those wars have been included by this person, where China wasn't defeat, or led to ceasefire. Thus the page sounds to be one-sided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, i made one revert, but he seems to be very one sided.

How do you think we can help?

We will have to keep the information, as that page seems to be very pro china, not neutral.

Opening comments by Benlisquare

At of present, Dispute Resolution is unnecessary, as the discussion hasn't even progressed beyond 12 hours yet. There is no need to be hasty; this article is on the watchlist of many people, and eventually more opinions will be gathered. I believe that the consensus-building process has yet to finalize. Give it at least a day; WP:DR is not meant to be a first-resort babysitting feature when things such as WP:3O or WP:RFC haven't even been used yet. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

List of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China 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:Sayeeda Warsi (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Baroness Warsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Christian1985 (talk · contribs)
• GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A few days ago I removed a controversial and I feel rather biased section entitled "Class". Baroness Warsi the subject of the article is from a working class background but the controversial section is basically a POV/OR section basically trying to contradict this by making ridiculous statements like "she claims this because her father was a mill worker but is now multi-millionaire" then goes on about her being a lawyer and being in an exclusive members club etc etc. All blatant smear attempts at trying to say "she's not working class, here's the proof". I feel the section is biased, POV with elements of OR and inappropriate and I argue it should be left out. A 3O editor has backed me on this but the opposing editor feels this is not sufficient and keeps reposting the controversial edit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have sought a Third Opinion which has been provided and does actually agree with my stance in the dispute but the other editor feels this alone is not sufficient for the controversial content to be omitted from the article. He would like a "second opinion" on the 3O

How do you think we can help?

I think the best thing to do would be provide another independent opinion on the dispute. Thank you for your help.

Opening comments by GorgeCustersSabre

Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi 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:Steve Jobs#Apple Computer.2C Inc..27s 1997 Financial Rescue (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pdunbarny (talk · contribs)
• BashBrannigan (talk · contribs)
• Dream Focus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Wikipedia article's statement that "Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998." is based on the subject's, Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs, own claims ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") and is not supported by facts other than those referencing the subject's claims thus making the subject the primary source of the statement posed as fact.

In addition the claim has a very high probability of being a false statement based on supporting evidence to the contrary provided in the talk pages linked, including the referenced article and linked US government documents filed by the company, Apple Computer, Inc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Satisfactory evidence suggesting the article's statement ("Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.") relies on the claim under dispute that was made by the subject ("We [Apple] were 90 days from going bankrupt.") that evidence shows it not likely correct, has been provided on the talk page.

Two other registered editors have provided opinions, one supporting the article's statement by questioning the evidence and the other believing there is adequate evidence provided.

How do you think we can help?

If the evidence provided is satisfactory, the statement under dispute should be either:

a) removed from the article, b) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject, c) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence, or d) amended to make clear that it is a claim made by the subject without supporting evidence and is disputed.

Additional evidence can be provided to conclude the dispute.

Opening comments by BashBrannigan

The argument that Jobs' statement that the company was "90 days from bankruptcy" when he arrived is that the only source is from Jobs himself. I did a quick search and was able to find a New York Times article from March 28, 1996 which discusses Apples grave financial situation, specifically a $700 million loss in it’s second quarter. Here is the link: New York Time 1996/03/28 apple-expects-it-will-lose-700-million.html

From the article: “A former Apple executive, who spoke on the ground that he not be named, said that the company's financial situation was so dire that he believed Apple was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year.” As Jobs took over in Dec of 69 this gives independent credence to Jobs “90 days” quote and certainly to the grave situation.

Additionally, in the evidence provided against Apple being near bankruptcy, it appears that the SEC filing is from late 97 and Jobs arrived late 96, so I’m not sure it applies. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dream Focus

Someone who understands all the stuff in the SEC report should comment on whether or not Jobs was just lying to exaggerate his own importance, as everyone that knew him said he often did(see his official biography).

I commented on how the current source referenced in the article is "just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there". Can anyone find any evidence to keep that bit in the article? Dream Focus 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Apple Computer's 1997 Financial Rescue discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, everyone has made a statement. Please give me a little time (less than a day) to read all of the talk page history, check all the references, etc, and then I will open this up for discussion. Thanks for your patience. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am now opening this for comments. I am going to ask you all to try to keep your comments brief and to the point, and to take your time composing and polishing your answers. Also, ask yourself "is this really new, or am I repeating what I wrote before?"

I have read all of the talk page comments and article versions, followed the links, and did a bit of searching myself. For my first run through, I did a little trick I like to do in these cases. I loaded all the comments (here and on the talk page) into my sandbox, deleted all the sigs and any references to names, went away for an hour, and just looked at the arguments without knowing who said what. Later will re-read it with the sigs. From this I came to some preliminary thoughts. Please don't think that these carry any special weight; right now I am seeing what we can all agree on

First, I was glad to see that I am not dealing with a "problem editor" Everyone seems to want the best for the encyclopedia rather than being disruptive. That isn't always true in these DRN cases.

There are a few places where a better understanding of our policies would help.

I would like whoever (don't tell me who!) wrote "Further analysis of the referenced SEC document will indicate..." to carefully read WP:OR (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS if you have time.) These policies can be hard to follow, because sometimes there is something that is true, that everyone agrees is true, and which is glaringly obvious with just a tiny amount of analysis, yet you not only have to not put it in, you have to actively work with the other editors to keep it out as editors come and go.

I would like whoever wrote (again, don't say who!) "The source is just what Jobs said in an interview. Thus it comes from a primary source. You need to find a better source to keep it there" to consider the following: deletion is not the only option. Attribution is an acceptable alternative, Instead of "Apple was X" with the only source being Jobs, you can change it to "In (month) of (year), Steve Jobs said that Apple was X". You can even follow it with a "The SEC said apple was Y", but it has to be a direct conclusion, not something we have to do OR to figure out. (I am pretty sure you all know all of this already, but only deletion was mentioned in the above quote).

OK, have at each other, but take your time and be concise. One strong argument beats a hundred weak ones. Thanks!

One final thing; if anyone for any reason wants, I will be happy to step away, no questions asked, and ask for another volunteer to take over. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to resolve this. The quote challenged, “Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability by 1998.” (referred herein as the “Quote”), contains, amongst other complex matters related to attributing the firm’s turnaround in 1998, an affirmative statement with two facts: an event (“bankruptcy”) and its timing (“90 days”) that combined is the focus of discussion. As the Quote is positioned as a fact, the burden of proof should reasonably fall on those making the assertion to prove the Quote true as proving a false statement to be false is near impossible, philosophically. Nonetheless, please review the below and pardon its length.

In order to hold the Quote as a fact, as currently published, it should be verifiable beyond the subject person. The only alternate source thus far provided by the editor supporting the Quote is a New York Times article published Mar 28, 1996 that:

1. Does not attribute the supporting claim that the company “was likely to be in the hands of its bankers, Citibank and Bank of America, by the end of the year” to a person other than an unnamed former employee, who could have been the subject person
2. Was published nearly eight months before the subject person first reengaged with the company as a part-time consultant when the company acquired the subject person’s company for $319mn cash, proving the company still had financial wherewithal,
3. States that Apple “broke off merger talks with Sun Microsystems, which had offered a fire-sale price of $23 a share” indicating the company was not near insolvency, and
4. No other large professional financial, commerce-focused or legal media outlet made a similar statement comporting with the unnamed source of the article’s claim. Indeed, two financial and business publications state the opposite with attribution (see below).

A Wall Street Journal (the “WSJ”) article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB868490956869493000.html) published the same day as the New York Times reference contains the following paragraph supporting the Quote:

“Another troubling question, these executives say, is whether Apple can adequately finance its turnaround amid a worsening cash situation. Apple's cash position had shrunk to $1.1 billion at Dec. 29 from $1.6 billion a year earlier. Much of the cash is tied up overseas, however, and the company had debt of about $800 million at that time, the most recent reported. Apple's financial situation got another jolt yesterday when Standard & Poor's Corp., which already had about $300 million of Apple debt on its CreditWatch, downgraded that debt to ‘negative’ from ‘developing’ after the loss projection was announced.”

Notice the article notes questions about financing the company's reversal rather than its viability. The WSJ article goes on to provide rebuttals to comments of a pending financial crunch; extra information is included for context:

“Apple executives insisted yesterday they see no underlying shift in demand for their products. ‘When you go through a period like this, everything gets batted around a bit,’ said Apple Chief Administrator George Scalese. ‘We still have all the strengths we had a year ago.’ He declined to discuss financial specifics such as Apple's cash situation until the quarter's results are reported next month. But, he added, ‘I am confident we will get the business back on track.’”

A BusinessWeek magazine article (http://www.businessweek.com/1996/07/b346257.htm) published Feb 12, 1996, about a month before the New York Times article, provides a comprehensive valuation from analysts. Quoting many investment professionals, it reports investors had valued the company between $28 and $58 per common share—-far from being an insolvent company.

Though the analysts’ valuations may be deemed subjective, biased and one may argue they are mere optimistic opinions of the company, the company’s equity market value hovered around $2.5 to $3.5bn on either the date of the referenced New York Times article, the period shortly before the subject person’s company was purchased by Apple or dates surrounding the announcement on Sep 20, 1997 of the subject person’s appointment as Interim CEO.

If the overall majority of financial market participants erred, financial media made material miscalculations, there was a massive financial fraud ongoing at the company making it overvalued by investors and a sole unnamed person quoted in the New York Times proved correct in identifying the “true” state of the company, that person should be named.

Though the burden of proof should rest on those agreeing with the Quote, I trust the above is satisfactory in at least dispelling a statement that had gotten currency as a rumor, especially since the subject person repeated it. As a compromise, I can propose that the quote may remain as long as it is qualified as a claim made by the subject and juxtaposed with factual data of the company’s equity market value surrounding any date in question to let users decide which fact is more valid. An example is below.

“Jobs [claimed to have] brought Apple to profitability by 1998 from near bankruptcy [though the company had in excess of $1bn in cash and short-term investments after expending $319mn in cash purchasing NeXT Software in 1997 and an equity market value of approximately $2.5bn to $3bn before the transaction according to US government financial filings by the company.]”

Pdunbarny (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that what I am about to write could be misinterpreted as my supporting one side of this dispute. In reality, I am just applying Wikipedia's policies to the argument that happened to be posted first. Tomorrow I may very well be giving the other side the same treatment.

Qualifying it as a claim made by Jobs seems reasonable. Does anyone disagree?

The "juxtaposed with factual data" to "let users decide which fact is more valid." is WP:SYNTHESIS. You cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What you can do is to try to find a reliable source that makes the same argument you made. If you find one, we can report that.

Here is a quote that may help to explain the way we do things:

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is a Good Thing." --WP:FLAT

A good example is where you cite "http://www.businessweek.com/1996/07/b346257.htm" in the passage above. That citation is totally useless for this purpose, because it does not contain the words "Steve", "Jobs" "bankrupt", or "bankruptcy". This means that it cannot be used it to support either side of a content dispute regarding whether Steve Jobs brought Apple from near bankruptcy to profitability Please note that this also implies that those on the other side should not bother arguing against it; it should be ignored as simply not being part of this discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It should have been made clear at the outset that the objection being raised regarding the Quote is not to disparage the subject person or detract from his accomplishments. There is more than enough polemic debate over the subject person that adding further controversy would not create much value, if any.

The BusinessWeek article is cited to contrast the only source the editor supporting the Quote has made reference to in the New York Times. Note that neither article includes the four words in the context of this discussion that you suggest they should.

As pointed out earlier, the Quote is affirmative and states a matter as a fact. The Quote is furthermore based on the subject person’s claim as a primary source. The burden of proof should rest on the person supporting the Quote to prove it as fact. To apply the principle from the Flat Earth excerpt, at the fourth century BC, it would have been easily verifiable with numerous authoritative, reliable and named sources during the period stating that Earth is flat. We don’t have similar consideration here with respect to the Quote.

From an internet search, one can conclude that nearly every article from a reputable, non-blog source makes clear that the part of the Quote related to “90 days” and “bankruptcy” is a claim made by the subject person; none, I have read, state it as fact.

It is fair at this point to request that the editor supporting the Quote to supply concordant, verifiable, authoritative, named sources.

Pdunbarny (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That was a well-written argument - just what I was looking for. Now I want to hear from the other parties. Don't be too quick to reply when they do; you might find it worthwhile to see my response first. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a widely accepted viewpoint that Jobs rescued Apple from "oblivion" or "near-death" or "bankruptcy", however you wish to word it. It is incorrect that the statement that Jobs rescued Apple from bankruptcy came solely from Jobs' "90 days" quote. I'm providing just a few "Jobs rescued Apple" quotes and these opinions are not attributed as being from Jobs, but from the writers themselves. If there is a reliable published source that disputes this viewpoint, it could be included, but even then it wouldn't justify removing the "Jobs rescued Apple" statement.

Sources:

The Guardian: “After all, he's the man who rescued Apple from the near-death experience it underwent in the mid-1990s.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/27/steve-jobs-apple-ipod-ipad

Wall Street Journal: “it’s easy to forget what Jobs had to do to rescue Apple (US:AAPL) from its role as a niche player teetering on the brink of existence, as it was in 1997.” http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-09-24/commentary/30779071_1_apple-and-microsoft-apple-developers-software-giant

Globe and Mail: “But Apple's destiny has been closely tied to Jobs, the mercurial and charismatic leader who rescued the computer maker from near-death in 1996.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/apple-shareholders-vote-down-succession-proposal/article567891/?service=mobile

CNN: “Some Jobs watchers believe that it is Apple Inc., the company, not Apple's computers ...he must take some pride in the fact that this enterprise he co-founded, lost for a decade, and rescued from bankruptcy” http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/06/15/steve.jobs.legacy.dewitt/index.html

BashBrannigan (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The above is exactly what I am looking for here. Fact-based with citations we can check. You folks are being too helpful; are you sure that one of you doesn't want to call me a Nazi pedophile bedwetter, as is customary in DRN cases? (smile).

OK, so we have a cite for the bankruptcy claim, and unless someone objects I am going to assume that "near-death" means the same thing. So how about dropping the 90 days claim, picking a phrase from one of the above sources, and putting that phrase in the article with a citation to the source? Does anyone have an objection to doing that? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As before, I would like to get Dream Focus's input before we get into a series of give-and-take rebuttals. Everybody will be given plenty of time to make their points. Quality, not quantity, will win the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My input is that the SEC files are all that matters. There is no possible doubt to its accuracy, while the news media just quotes things and doesn't do proper background checks. Maybe it would've gone bankrupt without him, maybe not. Him convincing Bill Gates to invest a large chunk of money into them, really helped quite a lot. According to his official biography, before he became CEO again, he had been brought back there, and had done things to undermine the current CEO, even sold off all the shares of stock he had received, that on the public record, and perhaps that caused other investors to loose faith and thus hurt the company more so. What state were they in when he got back to Apple, and what state when he became CEO? No way to tell if he really did save it from bankruptcy, although he did get them making Ipods, Iphones, and whatnot that made them insanely profitable later on of course. Anyway, no need to put any quote about him saving the company at all, unless its honest such as "while Jobs claims he saved the company from bankruptcy, and some media people have quoted this without checking the facts, the SEC records show otherwise." Dream Focus 13:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed appear to be desirable, but according to Wikipedia's rules (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS) we can't put in the above "some media people have quoted this without checking the facts" or "the SEC records show otherwise" claims unless we have a citation to a reliable secondary source that came to that same conclusion. If we tried, it would be deleted for violating our policies on verification. Do you have such a citation? If not, can you suggest a wording that we are allowed to put into a Wikipedia article? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Quote discussed relies on a claim made by the subject person around Jun 8, 2010 and stated by the subject person in the video on this linked page around the two-minute mark: http://allthingsd.com/20100607/steve-jobs-at-d8-the-full-uncut-interview/. Since about June 2010, many media have relied on the statement without attributing it. Some, such as this Bloomberg article, make clear the source of the claim “It was 90 days away from bankruptcy, Jobs would later say.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/apple-without-jobs-as-ceo-gives-cook-28-billion-to-make-a-deal-real-m-a.html.

The four sources provided by the editor do not disclose where the claim comes from that the company was “near-bankrupt” (see comment below on definitions). As requested, please have the editor supporting the Quote provide valid attributed sources, preferably before June 2010.

I can in turn provide attributed professional financial analysts opinions or valuations from public published media for any relevant date showing that the company’s value was in the billions of dollars in even the most reasonably pessimistic case. Trumping any single financial analyst or a collection of them, the company’s financial filings with the US government at whatever date belie the Quote that the company was “near-bankrupt” within “90-days” considering its reports to the government state its equity market value of approximately $3bn as determined by thousands of highly-skilled finance professionals.

It should be noted that SEC filings for large companies are arguably more accurate than many peer reviewed academic journals as groups of lawyers, bankers, auditors, accountants and executives amongst other highly trained professionals review every word and figure before they get filed and a larger army of trained finance professionals scrutinize them after they get filed. Errors are seldom made and, when so, amendments get filed promptly. Unlike journals, newspapers and other publications, the legal and financial consequences of intentional or accidental misrepresentation can be very severe including in the former case federal prison sentences. Trillions of dollars literally depend on these documents. It would be a disservice if Wikipedia held these documents on par with or less than mass media publications.

The SEC requires its registrants disclose timely in filings information deemed material, such as a prospective bankruptcy filing or even if there is substantial concern over a registrant's financial state. Reasonably, it does not require registrants to attest they are not expecting to seek bankruptcy. I have however provided references to SEC files documents from the company that attest that the company believed it had adequate financial flexibility. If the opposite were true, the company's auditor would be required to opine so in written form and the company would be compelled to publish it.

This may seem like mere semantics but is central to this discussion. As I’ve noted before, bankruptcy, especially as used by the subject person, is an event and not a state. I don’t think it’s understood what the word “bankrupt” means, especially in the context here. While often used loosely, we should be clear that the word and its derivations have a specific legal meaning. In the US as in most developed countries, it is an event adjudicated and administered more or less by a judiciary, especially when the debtor is a publicly-traded company. This definition for "bankrupt"is also in agreement with that on Wikipedia. Though the vernacular that someone “goes bankrupt” or that person after doing so is “a bankrupt” is legally and commercially incorrect usage.

This is not a discourse in legal definitions. This is however to state that “near-bankrupt” has the colloquial currency of “near-death” or “near-pregnant”. These are largely binary events where one files for bankruptcy or is adjudicated bankrupt. The word “oblivion”, meaning to forget or be forgotten, is often erroneously interchanged with or misused for “obviate”, meaning to do away with a matter or to render it obsolete or useless.

I propose, as requested before, that the person supporting the Quote provide named sources. If that can be done, I will seek to provide one or more professional valuations showing that the company was not bankrupt or “near-bankrupt”. There are at least two dates in question here: Dec 1996, when the subject person sold his venture to the company and became a part-time consultant, and Sep 1997, when the subject person was appointed Interim CEO. Feel free to select the 90-day period starting from one of these two dates (or any other relevant date) it is believed the subject person is referring to. I will first await responses of named sources.

Pdunbarny (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever statement we agree upon, it will have a citation to a reliable source backing it up or it will be deleted. That is our policy. The only question is what the statement should be. I don't care what you decide upon, but I will check the citation and make sure that what the statement says is found in the cite. That's not negotiable.

If you "seek to provide one or more professional valuations showing that the company was not bankrupt or 'near-bankrupt'." you will just be wasting our time, because that information cannot be used. You need a reliable third party that published an analysis of that information. You cannot draw your own conclusions, no matter how obvious they are. Much of what you wrote above, such as discussing whether SEC filings are accurate, is wasting our time because it cannot be used. You really need to take the time to carefully read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY so that you don't waste your time or our time with information that cannot be used on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful to keep in mind as we pose responses that we are all operating under the same pay scale for this effort. I've respectfully invited the two other editors to a civil discussion and they have been so. The professional valuations were going to be cited. If you have constructive comments to make on the discussion, please provide. Not to be thin-skinned but if at anytime you feel your voluntary time is being wasted, feel free to appoint another person.

Pdunbarny (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the above offended you, and for that I apologize, but sometimes you have to be straightforward and tell someone that they are on the wrong path. I would be amiss if I let you or Dream Focus continue down the path of drawing conclusions from SEC filings when you clearly cannot find any reliable third-party sources that have published the same conclusions. Or rather have not so far found any reliable third-party sources that have published the same conclusions. I would be very surprised if those sources did not exist, given the high visibility of the subject. You just have to find them.

I am hoping that the next comment (from anyone) shows that that person has read the policy pages I have been linking to and has some questions about how to interpret and apply specific wording in those policies We won't get anywhere if I just tell you that you are on the wrong path and you refuse to examine the policy for yourself and question that. I could be completely wrong. It could be that the policies allow you to do original research by interpreting primary sources like SEC filings. We will never know if you do not study Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability and tell me where you think I am wrong. Clearly you either think those policies don't apply to you or that I am misinterpreting them. Please explain why you think that. You might very well be right. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon the ignorance as this is this editor's first experience raising a disputed matter on Wikipedia. When undertaking this it was presumed, amongst other things, that the moderator was to ask participants to refrain from personal comments such as "you will just be wasting our time", "Much of what you wrote above...is wasting our time", "You really need to take the time...so that you don't waste your time or our time".

An apology offered for these statements was followed by "you refuse to examine the policy for yourself" Though not studied, the policies were reviewed.

While no offense is taken, it appears there is a communication issue here. It is therefore requested that another volunteer be appointed to moderate the discussion or we should conclude this now as the little goodwill remaining is disappearing.

Pdunbarny (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

My position is that a statement to the effect that Jobs rescued Apple should remain in the article. I've little more to add than I have previously (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=541390483&oldid=541384996 ) in which I provide just a few of the nearly inexhaustible reliable sources which show that the statement is widely accepted. It would be against Wikipedia policy to remove something which has such a broad acceptance. (It is not necessary to also provide the writers' source, as an editor argued. Such a requirement would void Wikipedia of content. ) Wikipedia is a compendium of published material, it is not a place for original ideas regardless of their veracity. There are many publications which would welcome new ideas and research, but not Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this case and have placed a notice to that effect on the DRN talk page. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Since AGF has all but disapeared with at least one participant I will honor their request to conclude this DR/N if no other participant objects. If other wish to continue this filing we will need to see all particpants agree under this post with either Conclude or Continue. If this filing moves forward a warning to all participants that we do not discuss the contributers, just the contributions. Volunteers all have different approaches but we will not permit accusation against volunteers without a formal complaint being filed and then we will close this filing until that is resolved. If there is no formal complaint...please do not disrupt the DR/N with accusations against the volunteers. I feel participants could continue this on the article talkpagge if they wish to have an unmeditated discussion.

Please indicate whether this filing should continue or conclude below here. If all participants have not weighed in within 72 hrs the case will be closed with no prejudice.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I, like Guy Macon and Amadscientist, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I see no reason for Guy Macon to have felt the need to withdraw from this case, but very much respect his decision to do so. While the participants may not like the way in which Guy addressed the issues, his inquiries and in particular this one of March 1 at 23:10 go to the essence of this issue and should be the first question asked if this discussion continues. If the participants do not wish or are not prepared to answer that inquiry, then they should respond "Conclude" to Amadscientist's proposal above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both respondents for your thoughts. This editor would be pleased to continue...

Pdunbarny (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that two other dispute resolution volunteers have told you that the questions you objected to "go to the essence of this issue and should be the first question asked if this discussion continues", I would be glad to continue the case with no hard feelings if you wish me to do so, but of course that is entirely your choice.

As for your question about how to file a formal complaint against me, I would also be glad to walk you through that process if you want me to do so. I can pretty much tell you what the result will be; an uninvolved administrator will tell you what three separate dispute resolution volunteers have told you already. Nonetheless, you have a right to file a complaint. The first step is to figure out what policy you wish to claim was violated and to select the exact words of that policy you wish to reference. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC) ^{_{Having failed to receive an affirmative answer, I withdraw the above offer --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)}}

I make reference to Wikipedia:Verifiability that states, without this editor's emphasis: "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

The four articles referenced by the other editor are either editorials, with one specifically categorized and subtitled as "commentary", suggests the claim comes from the subject person's interview I linked earlier or do not state the source at all for the definitive statement.

The onus probandi of the Quote relies on the editor providing named sources. This is also in accordance with WP:EXCEPTIONAL in that the Quote.

Should we continue according to these Wikipedia policies, this editor requests named sources supporting the part of the Quote being challenged.

Apart from this, if there is one or more pages on Wikipedia that generally outline 1) Wikipedia complaint processes and 2) mediation steps beyond DRN, they could be helpful for future reference. Thanks.

Pdunbarny (talk) 08:17, 6 March 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

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Cobo Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MaryKlida (talk · contribs)
• Codepro (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am requesting an editor "Codepro" remove his addition of info on the Cobo Center page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobo_Center#History as it is not notable or currently relevant to the Center. It sites a 45 year old crime that occurred outside the center and involved a law suite with the City of Detroit:

On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. [2][3] George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall.[4]

He has also added news articles as references that are equally as old, and do not cite the verdict or outcome of the lawsuit, but have alot of color and drama that can dim the reputation of the facility.

I believe the statements and articles are not notable, current or relevant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Notes on edit history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobo_Center&action=history

Notes on my Talk page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaryKlida

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping we can convince Codepro to voluntarily remove his material and contribute to the page in a constructive manner. I do appreciate his notes of where information on citations are needed in the article, but not his antagonistic approach to posting warnings on the page before discussing his issues with me. I will be happy to consider mediation if this step is not productive. Thank you for your assistance,

Opening comments by Codepro

Wikipedia:Neutral point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center 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

• Microsoft Office 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs)
• Sonicdrewdriver (talk · contribs)
• Greglovern (talk · contribs)
• FormerIP (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Recently, magazines have started dedicating coverage to an issue of Microsoft Office 2013: Apparently, the retail versions may only be installed on one computer only. Purchasing a replacement computer means purchasing a new Office.

But how much coverage should we dedicate to this issue? Does WP:SYNTH allow us to say "this might not be legal in Europe" from a source that neither mentions Microsoft, nor Office 2013? (let alone the issue at hand). In addition, there are a lot of unreferenced info. (e.g "Microsoft publicly stated that this change was meant to reduce (or, even eliminate) the pirating of Office that has been rampant for years" fails to be verified against its source.) Should they be kept just because one editor keeps reverting their removal? What about speculations? Is keeping them not against WP:NOT?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue has been discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013. There are two separate discussion threads. All mentioned involved users have participated except User:Dogmaticeclectic, who prefers reverting instead of talking.

How do you think we can help?

As Max Payne says "a millions of dollars question I didn't have the answer for."

Opening comments by Dogmaticeclectic

First of all, WP:CON has already been established at the article's talk page, with all essentially agreeing except for User:Codename Lisa (who at first attempted to ignore it altogether while simultaneously pretending that the issue had already been addressed, and later added the content to the lead as discussed but did so in a manner that made it quite difficult for the average reader to spot). Second, this sentence on that talk page (not by me) - combined with WP:WEIGHT - summarizes my opinion quite well: "From the perspective of news coverage by reliable sources, *the* most discussed new attribute of the retail version of Office 2013 is that it is locked to one machine forever." Third, this dispute is not about the content (WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.) - since there exist numerous WP:RS for that, including the original Microsoft EULA itself - but about the currently-existing content's visibility (User:Codename Lisa is trying to change the subject again). (Fourth, to quote myself this time: "My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sonicdrewdriver

My personal opinion is that it shouldn't be included too heavily, simply because straight answers are hard to find. We have sources that back up the currently-included point, but there are other sources available that contradict it. I understand that it's a major issue, not something small, that's why I believe some coverage is good, but we shouldn't be alarmist when Microsoft themselves have been known to contradict our summary of their terms. They've failed to respond to direct questioning when I've put it to them (so far) as an organisation, but technical support staff from the company have made statements that muddy the water significantly, if not completely contradict us. drewmunn talk 12:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Greglovern

My opinion is that this is very important information that should be briefly stated in the lead and then stated in more detail in the body. For people who have been buying retail editions of Office for many years, this is a very surprising change, and one which can lead to an expensive ($400 for retail Office Pro) mistake.

When we read very surprising information that is mentioned only in passing, it is human nature to assume that the source must be mistaken. To state very surprising information only in passing is to do a disservice to Wikipedia readers. That disservice is compounded when the information could have helped readers avoid an expensive mistake. A reader who makes such an expensive mistake after reading the Wikipedia entry would naturally feel betrayed by Wikipedia.

In accordance with the Wikipedia principle of giving "due weight" (see neutral point of view), surprising information should be given the prominence that would be expected by a reasonable reader, so that the reader takes notice instead of assuming that Wikipedia is mistaken. A reasonable reader would expect such a surprising change to be included in the lead and then stated in detail in the body.

Microsoft representatives who have been asked about this change in the license agreement have given wildly varying answers. However, the license agreement itself is very clear, and in previous retail Office versions Microsoft meant exactly what they said in the license agreement. Withholding information because we fear Microsoft might really mean something different is not in accord with Wikipedia policy.

Where Codename Lisa says "consensus was reached" regarding her dispute with my edits in January and early February, I disagree. I had stopped when I felt I'd done as much as I could, given that per Wikipedia policy I could only quote Microsoft's license agreement and could not "interpret" it in any way. I still believed that the information was not given "due weight". Greg (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by FormerIP

Opening comment by uninvolved editor: FleetCommand

Without naming any name, here is my observation of the article in regard to the current dispute:

• WP:LEAD problem: Lead contains novel info that do not appear in the body
• Content problem: Article contains contents without source and original research, including two instances of improper synthesis of sources, in the disputed area. These must either be deleted or properly referenced. Attempt(s) to reinstate them without direct quotation from a reliable source must cease immediately. Tabloids are not reliable sources and weak/half-hearted statements made by the most reliable sources must not be turned into full-fledged bashful or praising statements in the article. (They must be disregarded.)
• I do not name any names but among the editors, there are those who really seem to be trying to improve the article and communicate with others. At the opposite end of the spectrum are editor(s) whose editing nature is tendentious editing and their communication skills needs a lot of improvements.
• All editors must immediately cease commenting on the contributors and start commenting on the contents. In additions, all editors should refrain from reverting unless there is a clear sign that their contribution will go uncontested. Tags are a semi-exception. Problem tags must remain on the article unless there is a clear sign that the dispute is resolved.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2013 discussion

Question

I am a little confused about the comment concerning WP:SYNTH and Office '13 in Europe. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. — nerdfighter^(academy) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:SYNTH says that an editor should not advance his own point of view based on material in source, when the said point of view is not in the source. Now, the article says "This may be illegal in the European Union", referring to the new licensing terms but does not provide a source that explicitly confirm it. Existing sources do not directly back this up. One of the sources is about Oracle, not Microsoft. Extending it to Microsoft based on an editors interpretation is WP:SYNTH and not allowed here. An expert must analyze the court ruling to see whether it applies to Microsoft or not, then we can cite him in the article. The other source is The Register which says "European courts tending to lean in favor of consumer rights" but does not specify how much do they lean. There are a couple of other statements about piracy and Trojan Horse-style which have elements of WP:SYNTH in them. There is another problem with this sentence which does not apply to your question.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that it would be illegal in the EU, but we do need a specific source for the opinion. (And, I've never edited a Microsoft Office article, as far as I can recall. There is no WP:DEADLINE for inclusion of information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that we need a source and that we should not hurry into adding a statement (unless I have misunderstood your deadline comment) but I'd like to add that I am sure it is totally legal in the EU. Microsoft is a licensing company; it knows what it is doing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer's notes

Hello everyone, I will try to help achieve a consensus in this case. I have not been involved, nor heard of this dispute before reading this request. I would appreciate if you would give me some time to go through the dispute before I will proceed with the negotiations. If you have any questions, please ask them below. Zaminamina (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Q1: Could we make an agreement that all parties will refrain from editing the article until we have reached a consensus? Zaminamina (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I can only speak for myself but I believe it is safe to agree not to make any major edit to the disputed area. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree not to edit the disputed area, but can't promise I won't make other changes to the article in other areas. I don't think unrelated changes within the article should have any bearing on this case, but correct me if I'm wrong. drewmunn talk 10:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Q2: To all parties: What do you believe is the consensus for the article (what you all agree upon) and what is disputed? What is your proposed solution to the issues? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that all here now agree that the content in question - at least generally speaking - should stay, so I think the only way forward now is point-by-point at the article's talk page per my statement below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hello, Zaminamina. I have listed seven points in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 § Problem in areas about licensing. That I believe is the area of dispute. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Q3: To all parties: Should this mediation be closed per Dogmaticecletic's comments below, and a RFC on the issue be opened to get a third opinion instead? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello. Codename Lisa here. The answer is negative at this time. We a third, fourth and fifth opinion at the time. RFC does not help any more that what it already did. In fact, if you take a look at the four discussions on this subject in the talk page (well, actually, I am assuming you have been doing so in the past three days), you realize that we need more than opinion. We need mediation. I might need to stress on that point, for euphemism is often used for the purpose of being polite. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You list the following points as the ones that you disagree on. Could you please explain your views on these points, as well as your desired outcome? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

6. Non-neutral point of view problem: You have probably heard it a thousands of times before but article should not have sections dedicated to criticism. Instead, criticism must be spread evenly into the article. The proper place of this criticism is in the section dedicated to boxed edition.

7. Non-neutral point of view problem: The article suppresses statements that may downplay the importance of this issue. For instance:

1. Ars Technica and Supersite said that this change does not impact a lot customers. According to Ars Technica, "The only people who would be impacted are those who migrate software between systems, and while that's common among enthusiasts, it's probably not mainstream: the mainstream solution is to buy an OEM preinstall license, or buy retail Office alongside a new PC, use that PC for 5 years (or more) until it no longer works, then throw it away and repeat the process." And the OEM version of Office 2010 was subject to the same restrictions.
2. According to Microsoft, downloadable and OEM editions of Office 2010 also were not transferable. Therefore, from a neutral point of view, the only licensing change between Office 2010 and Office 2013 is (a.) discontinuation of transferable boxed editions and (b.) introduction of transferable Office 365 editions for consumers. In other words, there is no licensing change from transferable into non-transferable, although there is a complete departure from boxed models to downloadable model.

Hello

As for point #6, the current problem is that article is written to frighten. With licensing change section put on top, the article practically says "hey, reader! Before you read anything, know one thing: Office 2013 has awful licensing terms!" I don't think it is acceptable. I don't also think that it is acceptable to have criticism section at the bottom of the article that says "hey reader! Forget what you've read until now because Office 2013 has terrible retail licensing terms."

In my humble opinion, there is one solution that I hold ideal and one the is a worst-case compromise. The ideal is that the article should have its natural flow: It should start with development, continue with new features, changed features, removed features, editions, market performance, reception, upgrades and end with other miscellany issues. Licensing changes should be explained separately for each edition in that edition's dedicated section. The focus from criticizing retail licensing (a bias) terms should be changed to neutrally reporting the current licensing terms (bias free) of each edition and comparing them with the previous version if necessary. This allows the reader to learn about the product starting from the most trivial detail down to the most intricate, so that when he or she reaches licensing terms, can form his own opinion. This, of course, is what I hold as an ideal.

Now, ideals may not always have consensus, so the worst-case-scenario suggestion is to solve the most obvious problem: Don't start the article by telling the reader "this product has terrible licensing terms".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I propose to move the "licensing change" section down in the article, putting the "development" section on top? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello again

As for point #7, the section is written not from a neutral point of view, but from that of someone who thinks this licensing change is actually bad. It says "many commentators" (a weasel word) think this a "Trojan horse-style effort" (a vague term, that does not sound good). (Yes, this is the subject of #3, not #7 but you should have known it before I started; as you know, problems do not always come in non-interlocking bundles.) To complement this loss of NPOV, the section fails to report that same sources used in the section might not think it is a bad thing.

My desired ideal is what I explained above about point #6: In the section dedicated to the retail edition of Office, describe that AT says retail edition comprised only 10% of Microsoft sale, that Microsoft has dropped boxed retail editions and as a result, there is no perpetually-licensed transferable retail edition in Office 2013. Then, comment that Microsoft has done this in favor of the newer "Office 365 for consumers" licensing scheme. Also mention that AT and WS expect this to impact a small portion of consumers and add AT's explanation as to why. If anyone noteworthy thinks this an evil act, by all means, please cite a reliable source that quotes him. It should not be forgotten to mention that downloaded edition of the previous version of Office were also locked to one device. Same process should be repeated for VL and 365 licensing, citing reliable sources that recount their pluses and minuses and their differences with the previous version.

Again, there is my worst-case scenario. Put the licensing section after editions section (where other critical receptions are also expected to appear) and include AT and WS take on why this might not impact many customers. In both ideal and worst-case scenario, unreferenced statements should either be cited or removed and weasel wording should be avoided.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Both you and the volunteer are simply restating points that have already been brought up at the talk page. How about discussing my arguments against those points, also stated there? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please state your arguments here, so we could discuss them? Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 18:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason that it would almost certainly take me quite a long time to do so, since I would have to carefully restructure my arguments to match User:Codename Lisa's points in the form presented above (otherwise, I would be unable to respond to them coherently). Also, as I have stated before: "In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. You seem to be more interested in pushing your own POV than resolving this dispute. Right now the dispute seems unresolvable and unless you, and especially Dogmaticeclectic, don't improve your behavior I will have to close this dispute. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 16:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the volunteer

Hello, Zaminamina. Can I inquire as to what is the cause of all this delay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lisa and thanks for your question. As you can see, not all parties are answering my opening questions and they have also not reacted to notices that I've sent out to them. I am unfortunately unable to mediate as long as all users are participating. The right path ahead if the users in question never turn up is a RFC. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Notices or no notices (the latter in at least one case), there is no announcement here that this dispute has actually been opened! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not announced the opening of the case, but I asked a question to all parties to start the mediation. I see this as an opening of the case. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean that all the other involved users see it that way too... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement regarding this dispute

I think this dispute should be closed. There's now a massive discussion at Talk:Microsoft Office 2013#Problem in areas about licensing (not to mention the rest of that talk page), and it seems to address the reason for opening this dispute in the first place (though not the discussion regarding the article content).

Furthermore, given how long this dispute has remained mostly inactive, and especially how long the discussion has continued at the talk page, I think it would be far more useful to simply continue there (and request that the users involved in this dispute voice their opinions there too, since only two users are currently discussing this matter there - including myself). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If that can be established as consensus, I will be happy to close this discussion and open a community-wide RFC on the issue. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Per my comments here and above: what exactly would the purpose of an RFC for this particular discussion be? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

To provide a third opinion on the issue. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Moot?

ZDNet reports license transfer restored. Garamond Lethet
c 19:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion should now be closed (this new reason is in addition to the reasons I mentioned above). The remaining (minor) issues regarding citations and synthesis can be discussed at the article's talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Points #4, 5, 6 and 7 are independent of this change. Their problem persists. I am still eager to hear from the participants how they would like to treat them. Until we address them, the discussion is valid. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not explained why you think these points should not simply be discussed at the article's talk page instead. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I did explain: Because after four separate discussion threats and several days of discussion, no consensus is formed and everyone is still dissatisfied. Maybe we should escalate this issue to WP:MedCom. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now edited the article to address all of the tags you added to the licensing section (both the citation and synthesis ones). Is this sufficient for you to agree to have this dispute case closed? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. Your edits may be the right thing to do, but you need to establish consensus for them here first. Codename Lisa, could you look at the reverted edits and let us know if they address your concerns? Garamond Lethet
c 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Garamond. Issue #4 is only partially addressed, thanks to PC World article. (Statement in the parenthesis still requires source.) All other problems are still standing. Problems of #6 and #7 have become even more grave, as the article keeps bashing Microsoft in present terms even though Microsoft has updated its licensing terms. To make matter worse, Dogmaticeclectic has removed the tags highlighting the problem areas.

To put it bluntly, hopes for a quick resolution to this issue seemed high when I started the fourth discussion thread, yet Dogmaticelectic has so far done very little cooperation. His energy is spent on reverting and insulting User:FleetCommand.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"All other problems" are most certainly not "still standing". Points 6 and 7 are the only ones that remain (the part you mentioned about 3 - which is actually 4, but anyways - wasn't there in your original point), and point 6 is basically impossible to address without cutting the section down significantly and integrating it, all for no valid reason (in fact, as I mentioned at the talk page, doing so would violate WP:NPOV, not follow it).

In other words, the only remaining issue (that could reasonably be addressed, since 6 cannot) is 7... and it seems you didn't read the version of the section after my most recent edits carefully because I changed much of it to past tense. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Item #6 is about merging and dissolving the whole section and your slight change in wording does not fix it. As for #3, #5 and #7, you have done nothing at all, besides removing the problem tags. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not even going to bother to address your claim that I "have done nothing at all" about those points "besides removing the problem tags" - check my edits more carefully. Nor will I bother to discuss point 6 any further at this point, since you did not even attempt to address my clear statement above that it is simply untenable because it would violate WP:NPOV.

However, regarding 7: what is/are your proposed edit(s) for this? I previously opposed adding this, but I suppose it can be mentioned (in a qualified manner) after all... so go ahead and add content for this to the talk page, or even to the article itself. After all, I don't feel like being the only one here accusing of violating WP:CON (which is actually exactly what I am attempting to reach)... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see a lot of behavior issues, but not much in the way of content disputes anymore, now that the license terms have been changed. This obviates the need for mentioning it in the lead paragraph, and it doesn't take but a few sentences to deal with "the license used to be x, but in response to consumer pressure, it is now y." I avoided getting involved initially because of my personal views on the topic, but i don't see how this change does anything but moot the content concerns. WP:DRN does not handle behavior disputes, and those are now, i think, the primary issues. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. With all due respect, our content concern has never been about the change itself. To get a better overview of the matter, please consider studying Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 § Problem in areas about licensing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had looked at that. Like I said, this seems more about the constant back and forth assertions of problematic editing. WP:CRIT issues are frequently handled on talk pages without input or intervention by WP:DRN volunteers. Sometimes properly integrating them requires staging, where a criticism section is allowed to remain while active steps are taken to integrate it into the body of the text. Sometimes criticism sections are entirely warranted. The intransigence and implications of bad faith editing I see here are, i think, more fairly characterized as a behavior issue than a content dispute. WP:DRN does not handle behavior disputes. I would still recommend this dispute be closed. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 22:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I understand. Given what you and Dogmaticecelectic said, we can close this case with "Failed". I tried my best. In the end, if you think there are behavior concerns on my part, I welcome any comment on private channels – talk page or email, if you are comfortable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't even try to address any of the points I most recently brought up above... it is indeed time to close this as "Failed". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:40, 7 March 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:Men's rights movement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yhwhsks (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

User carptrash is creating a hostile editing environment for new editors. She is not being civil, not assuming good faith, and generally derailing discussions. She has already been warned by another user about her behavoir, and has her comments hidden due to ad hominem attacks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked her to keep discussions on topic and to assume good faith. I have asked other users to talk to her as well.

How do you think we can help?

Instruct user carptrash on proper wiki etiquette.

Opening comments by

Talk:men's rights movement 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

• Cobo Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MaryKlida (talk · contribs)
• Codepro (talk · contribs)
• Fluffernutter (talk · contribs)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs)
• Paul Barlow (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor Codepro posted information on a 45 year old stabbing outside of Cobo Center and a lawsuit with the City of Detroit that resulted. There is no mention of a verdict or outcome of the law suit, and my opinion is the post is not notable for the history of the center or relevant to current events. He has also posted reference articles related to the incident that I have asked that he voluntarily remove.

I have made mistakes in trying to resolve this, the first was removing his post twice within a 24 hour period. I now understand Wiki protocol a bit better. I have also tried to improve the article in the manner requested by Codepro, but can's seem to get the hang of the reference and citation software. In the meantime, Codepro has posted a COI dispute on the noticeboard here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center

The resulting discussion puts Codepro's COI in question instead of mine, and he has not responded to this. Also, instead of helping me post the citations he requests, he is posting warnings at the top of the page.

[added by Noleander:] The material in question is:

On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died. George Overman Sr. filed a $1,025,000 suit in Circuit Court against the City of Detroit stating that the Detroit Police Department failed to provide adequate police protection at Cobo Hall.

[end Noleander addition.] --Noleander (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MaryKlida

Discussion on Codepros talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codepro

Discussion on neutral Point of View Noticeboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Cobo_Center

A failed attempt at Dispute resolution request because I did not fill out the form correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

How do you think we can help?

I would like Codpro to voluntarily take down the Overton incident material and warnings from the Cobo Center article, and contribute in a constructive way to the page. The Wiki instructions tell me that if I can't get the hang of the software for references and citations, to put the information on the page, and other editors will come along to help reformat. I would like some help in doing that, as I have invested a great deal of time, and can't. thanks.

Opening comments by CodePro

I request the NPOV discussion to be the primary one at this time. More time is needed to sort this out, and the NPOV discussion could potentially include other post I plan to make in the near future. Codepro (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fluffernutter

I don't see myself as actively involved in this dispute, but for what it's worth, I substantially trimmed Codepro's original addition, on the basis of it being undue weight on the matter even if the matter were relevant to the article. I also gave both users 3RR warnings and suggested they pursue in-process routes to resolve the dispute. As far as whether the matter is relevant to the article, I would prefer to let new eyes make that judgment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Guy Macon

As an active dispute resolution volunteer, I am recusing myself from any involvement in this case so as to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

Opening comments by Paul B

This is an issue of undue weight, essentially. Codepro added information about an incident that occurred in 1967: "On April 20, 1967 15 year-old George Overman Jr was stabbed in the chest in a robbery attempt near a doorway of Cobo Hall, crawled or stumbled to an elevator and died." The original sentence contained other information about the victim's family, but this was cut. There was also at one point a comment about a case against the local authorities (not the Cobo Center) concerning adequate policing, but there was no information about the outcome. The problem is that this sentence appears to stick out like a "sore thumb". There is no context for it. The rest of the article makes no reference to safety concerns. No evidence is provided that this was significant issue for the Center at the time or that there is any discussion about ongoing safety problems. The incident certainly occurred and is adequately cited, but it happened long ago and seems irrelevant to the article as it is currently organised. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cobo Center discussion

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be glad to help. Volunteers have no special authority, but are willing to facilitate a resolution. Let's wait for all parties to post opening statements before getting into a discussion. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is a section at the NPOV noticeboard on this identical topic. It is best if we have just one discussion happening at a time. If anyone wants the NPOV discussion to be the primary one (it began first) just say so, and we can close this DRN case. If the NPOV discussion then stalls or terminates, a new DRN case (or WP:RFC) can be opened at that time. Or, we can all agree to shift from NPOV noticeboard to this DRN case, in which case, parties should stop posting at the NPOV noticeboard. --Noleander (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are coming to resolution on the neutrality issue, and will agree to stop posting on that noticeboard and attempt to resolve the dispute here. --MaryKlida (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, the only new entry on the NPOV noticeboard that I see is from Guy Macon who has taken issue with the fact that I included him in this dispute resolution. Again, if this was a breach in protocol, I apologize. It seemed reasonable to me to request input from everyone that has so far given input in the discussions related to this dispute. I was not asked to list "disputing parties" but editors involved, which I interpreted as everyone that has chimed in. I want people to give opinion, believe me, and am asking that the Wiki community help resolve this. If I have offended you, I am sorry. The rules are very different in this community as is the software, and I am sure that with more experience, I will understand better what I am being asked to do. --MaryKlida (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Status update: waiting for user Codepro to provide an opening statement. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, CodePro says that they want the NPOV noticeboard discussion to be the primary discussion. So let's close this DRN case; and if the NPOV discussion does not reach a good consensus in a week or so, we can start a new DRN case (or an RFC). --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 8 March 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

• Swiss referendum, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Smirkingman (talk · contribs)
• number 57 (talk · contribs)
• wikidea (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a page wiki/Swiss_referendum,_2013. There is also a page describing an initiative that was part of that referendum wiki/Swiss_referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013. One editor feels the latter should be deleted or merged, others disagree.

There is also the issue as to what the latter page should be called, if the the decision is Keep.

Currently there is rename fight in progress. The talk page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiss_referendum_"against_corporate_Rip-offs"_of_2013 contains numerous exchanges.

The editors concerned can't agree and we need external assistance to resolve this.

Thanks for your time.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debate has failed

How do you think we can help?

By ruling (sadly) that 1. the page be kept/merged/deleted 2. If it's keep, the initiative's title

Opening comments by number 57

Opening comments by wikidea

Seems the best name is the one that it was on before (I tried to move it back, but made a mistake). This is "Swiss referendum "against rip-off salaries" of 2013". It'd be great if an admin can perform this move. Thanks, Wikidea 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Swiss referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013 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

• Deaths in 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sunnydoo (talk · contribs)
• WWGB (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Top 2 editors by number on the Death board and we are just having a series of skirmishes. For my part I have tried to work around him. I usually upload many of the additions and CoDs, WWGB usually handles the final editing decisions. Each important in their own right. I am not super upset with him its just there are a few issues between us that are driving the other one crazy. One is he can not justify his Nationality policy. He treats indigenous people differently than other people. WWGB is Australian and I have shown him on Wiki for example that people from Puerto Rico have the same territorial rights as American Indian Nations, yet he insists on calling one American and the other Puerto Rican. Same thing with Chinese and Hong Kong. I have tried talking to him, showing him facts and presenting him with a plan both privately and on the Death talk page, but its not working. Now WWGB seems to have a problem with American culture references to the 1950s and 1960s because African-American firsts are not noteworthy (to him) yet are featured in the articles I cite. Take yesterdays' article on Harold Hunter. He was the first Af-Am to sign an NBA contract, yet WWGB doesnt think that is notable and has already reverted me 3x in 6 hours (not even 24). Yes, I got upset after the 3rd time and said something I shouldnt have, but I dont talk about Australia if I dont understand a cultural reference and I dont believe WWGB gets that. I have always deferred to him on that subject. For my part, I understand he is upset with me over the use of the term "Kiwi" which he regards as a colloquial use for New Zealand. Yet I have shown him time and again that the word "Kiwi" is used 100x per month in headlines from New Zealand around the world and shouldnt be still considered as such. What I want is to just get along. I do this to relax and one of my push buttons in real life is when people get treated differently because of what they are and not who they are.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have talked back and forth on each others talk page. We have tried talking on the Death talk page. Its just not getting resolved. And its frustrating. In the past he has shown me a couple of things and I have shown him a couple of things to resolve issues. For a long time for instance I was using the wrong – because I use a different type keyboard than him. We figured that out and resolved it. Its just not getting resolved this time around.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that you can help us to communicate better with 3rd party mediation. I understand he is from Australia and I am from the United States. I am probably a little bit older (late 40s) than he is so I dont know if it is a generational thing besides being a cultural thing.

Opening comments by WWGB

Deaths in 2013 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

• Pharmaceutical Industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Alfred Bertheim (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have a dispute regarding the NPOV policy and reliable sourcing policy regarding a section in the "Controversies" section. Specifically I believe that NPOV policy is being violated, and we both believe the others edits are not adequately supported by the cited sources, or that the sources cited are inappropriate

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussions on the article Talk page. In addition I have responded to extensive comments by SlimVirgin on my personal talk page

How do you think we can help?

I would appreciate some outside opinion on this as we have not been able to resolve it among ourselves. I believe we are both willing to accept external input.

Opening comments by SlimVirgin

Hi, it's too early to bring this here. The discussion on talk has only just begun (see this section); Alfred has posted there around three times and I have posted four. The situation is that Alfred removed some sentences and sources, and another editor reverted. [2] Alfred removed them again, and I reverted. [3] Then he added some material that I felt was inappropriate, so I retained some of it and removed a part that was based on a primary source. [4] I've asked him on article talk and on his own talk page to use secondary sources, per MEDRS. That's where the discussion is at present. If he finds a secondary source for that material, I have no problem with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Industry 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

• Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Karl Marx#Edit request on 5 March 2013 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Karl Marx/Archive 10#Lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hutchski (talk · contribs)
• RolandR (talk · contribs)
• Kuyabribri (talk · contribs)
• Polisher of Cobwebs (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• Archivingcontext (talk · contribs)
• Sarg Pepper (talk · contribs)
• Malkin (talk · contribs)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an issue with the statement "He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time." in the opening paragraph for the article on Karl Marx. I believe it's broken these rules as quoted from Wikipedia:

"Be careful with weasel words

Weasel words are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. "Houston is considered the friendliest city in the world." Really, now. Who says so? Do not use expressions like "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged," without saying specifically who is doing the claiming, thinking or alleging."[5]

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""[6]

As explained above (the word 'considered' is even used in the example of what not to use), such broad statements should not be made, instead the sentence should refer specifically to the people who say so. An accurate phrase would be for example "Vince Cable lists him as the 4th greatest economist of all time." The broad terminology which is currently used does not state who considers him to be one of the greatest economists of all time, and therefore leaves the impression it is a widespread belief which it is not, and the references do not support that either.

Another rule it breaks is:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." I can't go into detail about this due to the character limit but this is certainly a contested statement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I recently read this article and thought this statement was extremely bias and therefore felt the need to raise the issue on the talk page. I had a discussion with another user who has since stopped responding. He also notified me that this has been discussed before (I have linked both of these pages in the location of dispute box).

The sentence has been added and removed several times by other users yet there is no consensus on the issue despite much previous debate. It is still there now.

How do you think we can help?

Please clarify if this sentence is appropriate and if it should be removed.

I don't think I've ever read a Wikipedia article about a person which has such a broad unspecified statement of praise in an opening paragraph.

I believe it was added by users to promote his agenda. Not even Adam Smith has such a prominent and broad statement of greatness in the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia article so it seems totally inappropriate for someone as controversial as Karl Marx to have this stated.

Opening comments by RolandR

I have no interest in discussing this with this user, who has made a total of twelve edits to Wikipedia, half of which consist of hostile soap-boxing on the article talk page. As far as I am concerned, rthere is no dispute and nothing to discuss. RolandR (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kuyabribri

My "involvement" in this dispute was purely in a housekeeping role. I came across the page in my routine check of CAT:ESP and I only closed an outstanding ((edit semi-protected)) request as it was apparent that there was no consensus for the requested edit at the time, as per the guidance at WP:EDITREQ. My comment at the time explicitly advised the involved parties to continue to work to consensus ([7]). I do not wish to get involved in this DRN discussion and will not be coming back here unless there is a specific question regarding my "involvement" in this dispute that needs to be addressed. If such a question arises please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Polisher of Cobwebs

Opening comments by Piotrus

Opening comments by Archivingcontext

Opening comments by Sarg Pepper

Opening comments by Malkin

I'm really not involved in this and won't be participating at any great length. I offered a few sources in the last but one discussion about this that would support either the 'great' or 'influential' wording. Personally I'm equivocal, there's no real difference between these two wording choices IMO. However, I also feel Hutchski has not attempted to reach consensus to any great extent on the talk page. Kate (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Paul Siebert

Karl Marx 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

• René Redzepi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Etimo (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• Guzhinjeri (talk · contribs)
• TripiSh (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the article on Rene Rexhepi, a succesfull chef in northern Europe. The article has been locked by a moderator called "the Banner" and cannot be edited .In Rexhepi's Early life, the author of the article writes that Rexhepi is "half Danish/half Macedonian", whithout specifing his Albanian ethnic background, which for Rexhepi is very important, as he has specified in several interviews. Despite being asked repeatedly to correct the article by bringing evidence about his origins (New York Times articles, respectable cooking magazines, Video interviews), the user "The Banner" refutes to edit the article and to examine the evidence provided without giving a satisfactory explanation. He appears to have an unreasonable and generally snobbing attitude towards other users, and has made rhetorical questions which clearly reveal prejudice towards Albanians, something that made me accuse him of being biased and having prejudice toward this ethnicity. Despite overcoming the heated part of the discussion and trying to explain him where the problem lies, he avoids the issue by taking the dipute on a personal level (he feels attacked). I have used some remarks too but that's because I think that he has racial prejudices, something I can't really tollerate. The dispute has not been fruitful, I guess I have my part of guilt.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mostly by argumenting and asking him to provide reasons for his behaviour, something he apparently won't do.

How do you think we can help?

Simply by checking the supplied sources and judge on the character's right ethnicity. Understanding the reasons why the user "The Banner" won't accept other evidence and (possibly) whether he has racial prejudices.

Opening comments by The Banner

In short, POV-pushers accusing me of racism and prejudice because I keep asking for reliable sourcing. In fact, I think not every editor is what it looks like, so I have requested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Etimo. The Banner talk 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Further mediation not necessary as filer did not even try to get involvement from third parties before coming here. The Banner talk 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And final: he just seems to think that you guys will now solve the case: (...) that the issue has been sent to the Dispute Resolution notice board and and now it's responsibility of others. The Banner talk 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Guzhinjeri

Opening comments by TripiSh

Rene Redzepi 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:Wasteland 2#Game Camera View (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Frogacuda (talk · contribs)
• Niemti (talk · contribs)
• Sxerks (talk · contribs)
• ThomasO1989 (talk · contribs)
• SharkD (talk · contribs)
• Furious Style (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Game sites sourced in the article claim that the game uses an isometric view. This claim is agreed upon by all parties involved as inconsistent with all writing on the subject of isometric projection. One side of the dispute believes that the source(s) should be considered unreliable on the subject of isometric projection, based on the greater reliability of dictionaries, textbooks, etc. On the other end, a user believes that the source calling it isometric is enough to make it so.

No claim is made by any party that the game is consistent with any definitions of isometric projection, only that this misinformation should be included because it can be sourced, and directly stated claims to the contrary about this particular game cannot.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on board. This resulted in repeated threats from user Niemti, continued revert wars, reports of abuse, and accusations of canvassing and sockpuppetry for all users disagreeing with Niemti.

How do you think we can help?

Need opinions on reliability of the sources for the specific context of isometric projection.

Opening comments by Niemti

The sources need to be directly related to the subject of the article. You gotta find them, or else it's original research. That you, or me, or anyone else, happen to disagree with whatever the developers and the media are saying, it just doesn't matter. At all. That's not something for any kind of discussion, and you're again just wasting time (mine, yours, and now you want waste time of more people). You've got to understand it and you're not going to change it, ever. That's, seriously, all. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sxerks

In the given video the developer states it is no longer "static isometric". "isometric" IS static, it is not free-motion. Developer states users can "move the camera" "change the direction of the camera" which is consistent with the use in the visual source and consistent with the description of an "Interactive 3rd person camera"--Sxerks (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ThomasO1989

While I'm normally against original research, leaving out a statement on an objective idea when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible. I feel that describing visuals is very finicky, because you risk mixing objective with subjective claims. Isometric projection is objective however, and it's not unreasonable if many people disagree that the projection is isometric based on previous knowledge. The sources in question obviously don't specialize in differentiating different forms of projection, and leaving out the claim is an improvement to the article because it potentially makes the article less inaccurate. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SharkD

The dispute is over whether the game's visual perspective should be labeled "isometric projection" or not. See also Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art and here for a similar dispute outside Wikipedia. I don't think "isometric" should be used in this game's case. I think we should instead opt for different terminology. SharkD  Talk  20:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Furious Style

Observation by uninvolved editor Garamond Lethe

Rather than approach this as an WP:OR problem, it might be simpler to solve it using WP:UNDUE: using the technical term in a nonstandard way in the absence of the standard use gives undue weight to the nonstandard definition. Garamond Lethet
c 19:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a good thought. OR and synthesis involves information added to an article, which is not the case here. This is just a question of avoiding a particular wording that is problematic.Frogacuda (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Wasteland 2#Game_Camera_View discussion

• Hi, I am Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Let me begin by saying this, we can help resolve a content dispute, but not user conduct disputes. For that, I would recommend an WP:RFC/U. Now that that is taken care of, let's delve in to the issue at hand, shall we? Based on my initial read of the talk page discussion and all of your opening statements, it seems to me that from a broad perspective, we should not be synthesizing information that is not in a source, so in that respect, I believe that Niemti has a point. I have a question for all of those involved: What is your opinion, in 100 words or less please, on Salvidrim's proposed text from the talk page. Do any of you have specific other suggestions? If so, please post. Go Phightins! 05:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the guidelines regarding synthesis only apply to the content of the article itself. This dispute is about the reliability and veracity of the sources, which can be scrutinized using common sense standards by comparing it with better academic sources.

I think you misunderstand the disagreement, if you are suggesting Salvidrm's suggested wording. Salvidrm's proposal is unacceptable because it still makes the assumption that there is some use of isometric projection in the game as an option or otherwise, which is utterly and completely false to anyone with eyeballs and a basic understanding of the term. Isometric projection, in addition to having a fixed viewing angle, is a form of parallel projection, which means there is no parallax distortion, and all verticals are parallel to each other, straight up and down. This is simply not the case in Wasteland 2, which uses standard perspective projection, the same as a first-person shooter, or any other 3D game. Images appear basically as they would from a normal camera from that angle. There has been no other proposed meaning of the term in this discussion so far.

My proposal was to say something to the effect of "a semi-overhead perspective similar to that used in isometric games" or to simply use less controversial descriptive terms and avoid the word "isometric" altogether. This was deemed unsuitable by Niemti, although no reason was given. Frogacuda (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Salvidrim's text makes it sound like there are only 2 views available. The visual source shows free movement, which is an "Interactive 3rd person camera"--Sxerks (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

More, importantly, none of those views could be accurately called isometric.Frogacuda (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting Salvidrim's text, I am asking what you thought of it. I am not an expert in camera projections, but it seems that Frogacuda's proposal is a compromise. Niemti, what is your objection to that? Go Phightins! 19:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm really hoping we can address my original question I posed here, which you haven't touched on yet, which is: "Can we use academic sources to discredit games sites as a reliable source on the subject of isometric projection." I'd prefer the article not even address whether it is or isn't isometric, in order to avoid problems of OR or synthesis altogether. Garamond Lethe's above mention of undue weight seems like further support for just avoiding the term outright. Frogacuda (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Garamond that avoiding the term seems like the best option here. By the way, what you postedo n Niemti's talk was unwarranted. You have no idea why he hasn't posted here, so that kind of comment doesn't help. Go Phightins! 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, you're right. I'm just eager to get this over with, and somewhat frustrated it's had to go this far.Frogacuda (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggested wording that is mostly the same as Frogacuda's. I think that it would be OK-ish to include that, but still feel a little uncomfortable because we don't have a good term that really "fits", and devising one of our own would be OR. Could we just choose not to mention the camera perspective at all in the article? SharkD  Talk  03:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone made an edit recently doing exactly this. I have no real problem with that, either, although I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say it has a 3D interactive camera with an overhead or semi-overhead view based on the source. Either way is fine with me.Frogacuda (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Going off of what Niemti suggested, what if we attributed the point of view issues to the game creator saying, "According to the game's official development blog, it features a 'modern take on a classic isometric RPG should look'"? Go Phightins! 20:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That wording isn't quite accurate, but I had also suggested wording like "billed as isometric" but again, no compromises seem to be enough. Any attempt to change the wording was deemed Original Research, and I would need to "accept that or face the consequences."Frogacuda (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying, "According to God, the Earth will be a modern take on the classic cube." Now, I don't know if God would be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; but facts are facts: the Earth is not shaped like a cube. SharkD  Talk  19:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have spent about a half-hour reading about camera projections and my head is absolutely spinning; is the deal that though it's billed as an isometric view, it's not? That's what I've concluded. If so, then I think I agree with the below from Cabe. Go Phightins! 19:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the term is being used very informally as a way of comparing the viewing angle to classic isometric games, even though it's not isometric in any way.Frogacuda (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the video shows and describes a free moving camera, the kickstarter update describes elements of a free moving camera and options to lock it in certain views but also misuses the isometric term. --Sxerks (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I agree with Cabe and Thomas; unless there is some alternate definition of isometric, the word is misused and consequently should not be used in the article. What alternate words to describe the camera projection have you come up with? Go Phightins! 13:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think "a movable semi-overhead 3D camera" captures it pretty well. Those using the term isometric loosely are really just trying to say it has a semi-overhead viewpoint, rather than a top-down or a low-angle (or character-relative) view.Frogacuda (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What do others think of that wording? Go Phightins! 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard "semi overhead" used, Interactive 3rd person camera is more common wording and even used in wikipedia articles.--Sxerks (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree that wording is accurate, it doesn't actually describe the viewing angle. "Semi-overhead" seems to more directly describe what people are trying to say when they say "isometric." I can certainly find examples of the term in use on mainstream publications [9][10][11]. The latter is probably the most relevant since it uses a camera and view very similar to Wasteland 2.Frogacuda (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How about, "The game utilizes a 'semi-overhead' camera angle which has been mistakenly referred to as isometric" or simply "The game uses a semi-overhead camera angle" Go Phightins! 03:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with "a movable semi-overhead 3D camera" that Frogacuda said on the 6th for the time being until a reliable source does a better one, as long as isometric is left out since it is inaccurate. It's really a matter of whether Niemti will continue an edit war because he wants "isometric" in the article.--Sxerks (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am MGray98 (talk), another volunteer, and I think at this point it is not a matter of whether "isometric" is correct, but what a more correct phrase is. Am I correct? If I am, then my take is that a specific term is not needed and rather a phrase that correctly describes the view will suffice. MGray98 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Niemti has expressed his disinterest in this here. It appears we can reach consensus. MGray98 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by uninvolved editor - For me it looks like ThomasO1989 hit the nail on the head with: "leaving out a statement on an objective idea when one knows it to be incorrect is plain common sense. It isn't good judgement to blindly accept what reliable sources say, because being reliable doesn't imply infallible." In this case, isometric projection has a dictionary definition which is established and accepted - it is not a disputed concept - if the game features a free moving camera then, quite simply, it is not isometric. A source usually considered reliable can be ignored if making an obvious error like this. At most it can be mentioned that there is a claim the game is isometric but that stated as incorrect and sourced with any RS source on isometric projection. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:44, 4 March 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

• Julie Menin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Maxx Attaxx (talk · contribs)
• Sportsman9830 (talk · contribs)
• Jschwartz533 (talk · contribs)
• Veritas411 (talk · contribs)
• Nygiants212300 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been engaged in an "edit war" with user Sportsman9830 over edits I have made to Julie Menin's page. On various occasions I have attempted to add relevant and well-sourced information on her Manhattan Borough President campaign, and have expanded upon already existing information on her wiki page. User Sportsman9830 has continuously deleted my edits, and has accused me of "vandalizing" her page for political reasons. He noted that I have also edited Jessica Lappin's page, who is her competitor in the Manhattan Borough President race and have only written non-negative things about her. Yet he fails mention that I have previously edited Brad Hoylman, Daniel O'Donnell, Didi Barrett, and the New York State Assembly and State Senate pages as well. I make these edits because I am knowledgeable about New York politics and believe users looking up political candidates to educate themselves before voting (or for whatever reason) should get the most accurate picture of the candidates, not read the scripted information that the campaign consultants meticulously vet prior to posting. I don't know what Sportsman9830's affiliation to Julie Menin is, if he has one at all, but if he is this caught up with another use posting relevant and accurate information to the wiki page, it would seem that he is, in fact, the one who has a bias in this situation.

I will reiterate that all of my edits were publicly sourced consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. I have not just added random defamatory bits of information -- I've expanded upon sections (and sometimes even sentences) previously written into the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Appealed to the talk page of Mdann52, who restored my edits because they were reliably sourced. Yet my edits have been removed once again.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully by reinforcing the standards of Wikipedia, fleshing out any underlying reasons for wanting to delete accurate edits and ensuring that the most accurate information is allowed to be displayed on the page.

Opening comments by Sportsman9830

Opening comments by Jschwartz533

Opening comments by Veritas411

Opening comments by Nygiants212300

Julie Menin discussion

Greetings, I am Shiny Bauble; a volunteer DNR. I would like to help resolve this issue, but I'd like to know the level communication between the parties involved. Have you tried to resolve this issue with the user you're warring with? If so, if I could see some diffs I will get right to work with trying to resolve this issue. Thanks, Shiny Bauble! ^{Pretty Shinies...} 20:50, 12 March 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

• Map projection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 184.186.8.148 (talk · contribs)
• Strebe (talk · contribs)
• Alvesgaspar (talk · contribs)
• Hhhippo (talk · contribs)
• Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs)
• Peter Mercator (talk · contribs)
• AlanM1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whether or not a sphere is a two-dimensional object. The Map projection page is about the commonplace mapping of two-dimensional spheres (like the surface of the Earth) to two-dimensional planes (like a road map). Now, this is not strictly correct (as you can have higher-dimensional mappings), but I have conceded that the article need not go into these complexities. I originally thought that it should.

Nevertheless, User:Strebe insists on including one of two locutions in the article, both of which are factually incorrect: (1) that a sphere is 3-dimensional, or (2) that the surface of a sphere is 2-dimensional (no one talks this way, but technically the surface of a sphere is 1-dimensional. The article, in my view, should be consistent and precise in its usage. The mathematical definition of the surface of the Earth is a "sphere"--and that is what the article should say. The Earth itself (and not its surface) is a "ball".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page, and I have issued an RfC. I have also attempted to engage Strebe on his Talk page, but he has said that I am "blather[ing]", "wasting everyone's time", and that I "simply [do] not understand English or the topic well enough" (in fact, I'm a native English speaker and a mathematician).

Strebe has said about me: "That makes you a troll" and "You are wasting everyone’s time, including your own. Go away."

How do you think we can help?

I am a new editor, but I believe that I have acted in good faith. I think that if a third party with expertise verified that a sphere is a 2-dimensional entity, that would help. Or, if consensus could determine, through basic Internet research, the status of this claim.

Again, I am willing to limit the article to the common use of projections, but I believe we must be consistent and correct in our terminology.

Opening comments by 184.186.8.148

A sphere is 2-dimensional. While language is sometimes used haphazardly--in referring to, for example, a soccer ball as a 'sphere', it should not be used haphazardly in a Wikipedia article, and especially a mathematical article. A soccer ball is a ball, and the surface of a ball is a sphere. "[T]he term 'sphere' refers to the surface only, so the usual sphere is a two-dimensional surface. The colloquial practice of using the term 'sphere' to refer to the interior of a sphere is therefore discouraged, with the interior of the sphere (i.e., the 'solid sphere') being more properly termed a 'ball.'" (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html).

I have already conceded that we can keep the article focused on common map projections (viz. from the surface of the Earth to a 2-dimensional plane). Strictly speaking, a projection need not go only from a curved 2-dimensional surface to a flat 2-dimensional surface, but I agree with User:Strebe that that need not be the point of the article.

I do not agree, however, that we can substitue "sphere" for "ball" or "surface of a sphere" for "sphere" or refer to spheres (in this context) as 3-dimensional objects. We must be consistent with our usage throughout the article. We should refer to spheres, or "the surface of the Earth" (=a sphere), and always as 2-dimensional objects. The fact that a sphere is 2-dimensional may be trivially verified by asking, 'how many coordinates does it take to specify a point?' On a sphere it takes two, latitude and longitude (e.g.). Therefore no matter how we decide the CONTENT of the article should be shaped, claims like "the surface of the Earth is 3-dimensional", or "a sphere is 3-dimensional" are simply wrong.

Opening comments by Strebe

No one claimed “the surface of the Earth is 3-dimensional”, so I ignore that.

184.186.8.148 insists on a “mathematical” definition of a sphere whereas the article is written by the standards of the map projection literature. I gave references on the Talk page and a citation in the article. 184.186.8.148 deleted the citation. The references agree with each other and disagree with 184.186.8.148. English dictionaries state a sphere is a solid:

(Oxford American Dictionary)

sphere |sfi(ə)r|

noun

1 a round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.

• an object having this shape; a ball or globe.

• a globe representing the earth.

…

I do not always think we should go with a general dictionary’s definition over the technical just for the comfort of the reader. In such cases an article should explain the distinction. But that is not the case here. In map projections, the term “sphere” carries the same meaning as the vernacular:

(John P. Snyder, An Album of Map Projections [US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1453])

A map projection is a systematic transformation of the latitudes and longitudes of locations on the surface of a sphere or an ellipsoid into locations on a plane.^[1]

Here, Snyder refers to “the surface of the sphere” rather than “the sphere” as 184.186.8.148 wants. This usage is repeated consistently:

Great circle: Any circle on the surface of a sphere…

Latitude: Angle made by a perpendicular to a given point on the surface of a sphere or ellipsoid…

…

I established on the Talk page that map projections are a cartographic endeavor with its own literature. That literature is the authority for map projections. This is nothing more than a case of someone from one field zealously misapplying a pedantism to a different field. Strebe (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Alvesgaspar

• Whether a "sphere" is considered to be a two-dimensional surface or a three-dimensional body is a question of convention. In mathematical cartography the second definition applies, as Strebe has already stressed with citations from well-konwn authors. Here is one more, from one of the leading authorities in the field (together with Jonh Snyder): a map projection may be defined as any systematic arrangement of meridians and parallels portraying the curved surface of the sphere or spheroid upon a plane (Dereck Maling (1992) - ""Coordinate Systems and Map Projections"", 2nd Edition). I really don't think we have anything else to discuss here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Boing! said Zebedee

I agree with Strebe - the article should use common/cartography/map projection terminology, not terminology specific to mathematics.

Even the Wikipedia article Sphere defaults to common terminology...

"A sphere (from Greek σφαῖρα — sphaira, "globe, ball") is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space, such as the shape of a round ball."

It makes an explicit point that mathematics terminology is different...

"In mathematics, a distinction is made between the sphere (a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space) and the ball, a three-dimensional shape which includes the interior of a sphere.").

Thus in this context, a sphere is a 3D solid and its surface is 2D. (And as Strebe has pointed out, *nobody* has claimed that "the surface of the Earth is 3-dimensional") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that the dispute as stated begs the question, saying "The Map projection page is about the commonplace mapping of two-dimensional spheres..." (my emphasis) - it should have been worded neutrally in a way that does not presume the outcome. The page is about the mapping of n-dimensional spheres - and this discussion, not the complainant, is what should decide on the value of n -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• (E.W. Anderson, Royal Institute of Navigation, The Principles of Navigation, 1966, ISBN 0-370-00311-X, p318) says "A great circle (G.C.) on the surface of a spherical globe is a path...", not "on a spherical globe", thus making a distinction between the surface and the spherical globe and consistent with Snyder as quoted by Strebe and with Maling as quoted by Alvesgaspar. (I just remembered I happened to have that book on my shelf) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• (Nationalatlas.gov at http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_projections.html) says "Great circle—A circle formed on the surface of a sphere...", again making the same distinction. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hhhippo

As far as I can see, it is undisputed that there are different definitions of 'Sphere'. It seems furthermore accepted by all participants that this article is mostly about cartography, not mathematics. Therefore the main goal of the article should be to clearly explain the topic of map projections within the context of cartography. Where it is possible to keep this description consistent with the mathematical definitions of the terms used, without impairing the main goal, this should be done. Otherwise, the definitions common in cartography should be used, and marked as such in an unobtrusive way (e.g. by inserting "in cartography,..." or footnotes). Special care should be taken when linking to articles which might use different definitions. A separate section on the mathematical details would be a nice addition, but in the lede I would value the clarity of the description higher than its completeness. — HHHIPPO 22:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Peter Mercator

Opening comments by AlanM1

Map projection discussion

Hello I am MGray98 (talk) , a volunteer for the DRN. All users need to make opening statements before we begin, but i first want to point out two things.

1. This noticeboard does not cover behavior of editors.
2. Since this is a disagreement on information, all facts you give will need to have a source.

--MGray98 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good copy, thanks for helping.184.186.8.148 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we can now get started. I've read up on some stuff and I think you two can discuss this now. Since the unregistered user made the request, you can go first Strebe. Do you have a source that categorizes a sphere as three-dimensional? MGray98 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Info -- Please check the talk page, this is not an edit dispute between User:Strebe and 184.186.8.148: there are some other users involved. I have added myself to the list, as I was part of the discussion from the very beggining. The other users should have been added too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't notice that. Tell me if I miss anyone. It will be fixed and the other users will be notified. MGray98 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your quick response. Yes, there are two other users: Peter Mercator and User:AlanM1 -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. Done and done. MGray98 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are we questioning whether spheres in general are two or three-dimensional, or spheres used in map projections? MGray98 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's "sphere" in the context of the article Map projection - see Talk:Map projection -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I think we're all agreed that the surface of a sphere is 2D, and that in mathematics sphere and surface of a sphere are synonymous. The disagreement is whether they should be considered synonymous in the specific article Map projection (and perhaps in cartography in general) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, we don't all agree on that at all. You're begging the question. A sphere is 2D. The surface of a sphere is technically 1D, but no one talks that way. I concur that the surface of a BALL is 2D, but that's different. Cf. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html.184.186.8.148 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Answer - The way we define sphere is a question of convenction. In mathematical cartography (the field of the article) the usual way is to define it as a three dimensional body whose surface is equidistant form the centre. However, as User:Boing! said Zebedee noted above, the dispute initiated by the anonymous user beggs an answer which is irrelevant for the issue. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. You were using terms like "surface of a sphere" which is meaningless (a sphere IS the surface) and referring to spheres as 3D objects. That's just wrong given the definition of the terms.184.186.8.148 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We are starting to get off track. What are the two choices for the article to be? I appologize, this is not my area of expertise. MGray98 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are we questioning whether spheres in general are two or three-dimensional, or spheres used in map projections? The parties do not even agree on which question we are answering. The article is about map projections, so if we are not answering the question of how spheres are defined in map projections, then we are implicitly claiming authority to impose some other definition of “sphere” onto the article in contradiction to the literature of map projections.

There are three definitions in play: A. The (modern) definition from pure mathematics, which is a two-dimensional surface. This is the definition User:184.186.8.148 advocates. B. The general English definition, in which the term can mean either the surface or the body or even be ambiguous. C. The definition prevalent in the map projection literature, which is what I advocate. It happens to be synonymous with B.

In my view, A is irrelevant to the text because the literature of pure mathematics is distinct from the literature of map projections. You cannot force the terminology of one field onto another. Terminology evolves organically amongst the participant researchers, not by editors of encyclopædias. I think B is relevant to an extent because the readership is presumed to be lay. I think C is most relevant. Since C is synonymous with B, the resolution ought to be particularly easy. Strebe (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strebe diagnoses the problem correctly but I do not agree with his proposed cure. This is Wikipedia's one and only map projection page, and it is mathematical in content. The map projections to which Strebe refers only involve a sphere (viz. the surface of the Earth) to a 2D plane (e.g. a road map). These are, I concede, the projections we most commonly encounter. However, the notion of a map projection extends far beyond this simple case. Projections need not go, for example, from curved 2d to flat 2d space only, and in mathematics higher-dimensional projections are common. Map projections are fundamentally mathematical and accordingly one finds that there is a substantial amount of mathematical jargon and discussion on the page.

Now, I agree with Strebe that the page should focus on the typical map projections which he advocates. On my view there should be a sentence or two saying that this just a special case of the more general concept. But in any event, however those issues are hashed out, we cannot be jumping around terms haphazard. Prior to my editing the article included, in different places, in referring to the surface of the Earth, "sphere", "surface of a sphere", that it was 2-dimensional, that it was the surface of a 2-dimensional body, that it was 3-dimensional. We need to be precise and consistent in our terminology, and the best way to do that is to use rigorous mathematical definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.8.148 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

184.186.8.148 here is advocating folding map projections into the field of mathematics. It is not a field of mathematics. It uses mathematics, but the field of map projections is cartographic. There is no field of “map projections” within mathematics; the term implies cartographic application. Even if there were a field of map projections within pure mathematics, it would have a separate page and a disambiguation link. 184.186.8.148’s proposal ignores the many non-mathematical concerns of map projections; violates the standards of the map projection literature; and violates Wikipedia’s WP:SYNTH policy because it enforces an editor’s ideas about how things should be arranged without any precedent in the literature of the topic. Strebe (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's a straw man--as I've already stated multiple times, including directly above, I concede that the article should focus on normal map projections (viz. those from curved 2d surfaces to the plane.184.186.8.148 (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

184.186.8.148’s proposal is to “use rigorous mathematical definitions”. I have stated that 184.186.8.148’s proposal ignores the many non-mathematical concerns of map projections; violates the standards of the map projection literature; and violates Wikipedia’s WP:SYNTH policy because it enforces an editor’s ideas about how things should be arranged without any precedent in the literature of the topic. I invite the reader to decide what is a straw man here. Strebe (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even conceding all of that, which I certainly do not do, it would still be wrong to say that a sphere is 3-dimensional.184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This nicely focuses the discussion: if reliable sources that are commonly used explicitly describe a sphere as 3-dimensional, would you concede that this insistence of yours conflicts with mainstream reliable sources? -- Scray (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is important--there is no question that "sphere" is commonly used to refer to 3D objects like the Earth. It's used that way colloquially, in (apparently) the cartography community, and so on. But "sphere" has a precise mathematical definition to mean the SURFACE of these sorts of bodies (which is 2D). My view is that, in a way, the word is owned by mathematics, and even more important the article is about a mathematical process (viz. projection). So we should be precise in usage, or at the very least, consistent throughout the article. Note: "Regardless of the choice of convention for indexing the number of dimensions of a sphere, the term "sphere" refers to the surface only, so the usual sphere is a two-dimensional surface. The colloquial practice of using the term "sphere" to refer to the interior of a sphere is therefore discouraged, with the interior of the sphere (i.e., the "solid sphere") being more properly termed a "ball."" (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just… wow. So it comes out at last.

No. Mathematics does not own “sphere”. Sorry. You can’t have it. It’s everybody’s. It’s English. It has carried the meaning of “ball” for more than three thousands years from σφαίρα through sphæra to sphere. It has always meant ball in Greek and now in English, from first usage. It has always meant ball in mathematics, too, until recently. Then apparently some mathematicians got together and decided they wanted to standardize on a meaning for it. Which, you know, is great for the specific journals and fields that want to use it that way. But to imagine that rest of the world should follow suit every time someone in mathematics decides a word is theirs and they get all pedantic about some meaning they decided on without bothering to confer with the rest of the world, well, no. Sorry. You can’t have it. You can’t have point, line, graph, intersection, or injection, either. (You can keep surjection and bijection, though. Blech.) You can’t have integrate, differentiate, differential, power, exponent, variance, deviation, or transformation, either. And keep your grubby paws off of map, for that matter.

If you want some word to get possessive about, go make one up and convince your colleagues to adopt it for the meaning of the surface of a sphere. Then you can own it and discourage colloquial (and cartographic) usage all you want. This is all particularly amusing given how many terms are disagreed on within the various branches and factions of mathematics.

Wow. Strebe (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are you being rude? Obviously we have a disagreement but I don't see why you keep behaving this way. I haven't personally insulted you. So knock it off.

A map projection is essentially mathematical. That is my view on the matter. I believe that this is supported by the character of the Map Projection page here on Wikipedia, which contains substantial mathematical content and jargon. As that is the case, I believe that we should use consistent terms throughout the article, and my (weak) preference is that the terms used reflect rigorous mathematical usage. I understand that this is not your view, nor, perhaps, the consensus view. And that is fine.

My chief complaints about the article have been almost completely rectified--namely, the thoughtless interchange of terms ("sphere", "surface of a sphere", "surface of the Earth", "3-dimensional sphere", and so on). So given that, and given that (at least to my mind) we have reached an imperfect but reasonable resolution to the issue, I am even more baffled by your ongoing anger. I have a view on mathematical realism; on rigor in spoken and written word; on the reduction of the sciences; and on the fact that propositions and words and meanings can be objectively true and objectively false. I may be wrong and you (it seems) do not share these views. But do me the courtesy of logical, thoughtful, and friendly--even if vigorous--dispute.184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment -- This thread was started on 9 March 00:39, almost three days after you have made some significant changes to the article. The only editing that occurred after that was your attempt to introduce the pedantic expression sphere or other ellipsoid on the leading definition, which I have reverted three times (not without being threatened by you with a 3RR remark). Then, if your chief complaints about the article had already been rectified, why did you start this discussion in the first place? Strebe’s irritation is perfectly justified by all the time and effort you have forced the other editors to waste. Yes, you are plain wrong on your fundamentalist views, as has being eloquently demonstrated in the present discussion. And you should have thought better before initiating this crusade and trying to force those views against the opinion of all other editors, about whose scientific competence you know nothing. Your subtle insinuation (above) that the meaning of “sphere” in the cartographic community might be somehow different from what we say it is appears to be proof enough that, on the contrary, your knowledge about the subject is close to nil. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Alvesgaspar: (Personal attack removed).184.186.8.148 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion -- I suggest to MGray98 to close this thread. It should be clear by now that 184.186.8.148 is alone in his/her interpretation on how the article should be written. Not only there is a clear consensus among all other editors (here and on the talk age) but such consensus is supported by the scientific literature on the subject (which was cited). I also want to express my discontent about the way this discussion was started, as if the dispute were between two editors (false) and about the dimensionality of a spherical surface (false too). That was not serious. Finally, I find it curious that an IP address is used with the exclusive purpose of editing this article by someone who introduces himself as a newbie but is deeply informed about Wikipedia's bureaucracy. I know that we are not here to judge the behavior of the other users but we cannot ignore it when evaluating their credibility. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You can keep your curiosities to yourself, and I'd ask you not to violate Wikipedia policies, such as WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BITE. It's true that I am a newbie. I am a mathematician, found the article, found it lacking, and started to edit it. Because I have respect for process, I followed the guidance on the website about how to resolve disputes. There's no hidden agenda here. I suspect maybe you just don't like a newbie impeding upon your groupthink.

Why is it "false" that the dispute is about "the dimensionality of a spherical surface"? That's exactly what the dispute is about, as I've made clear above. You were calling a sphere a 3D surface on the website before I arrived. Under whichever interpretation, that is simply false. Again, go to the well-regarded Wolfram site if you need to verify this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sphere.html .184.186.8.148 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No one called a sphere a 3D surface, and that was never what the dispute was. Because we have a volunteer trying to sort through this, we need to keep the discussion to the matter at hand, and in particular avoid stating things that never happened. Strebe (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Before I made my first edit to the page the first sentence read: "A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body" (the 21 Feb. version). That's actually worse, because speaking strictly the "surface" of a sphere is 1D! But using the terminology in the way that you do, you said there that it is 3d, which it is not.184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That sentence can be interpreted in different ways, and there are other definitions of 'surface' than the on you use. But that's irrelevant here, this discussion is not about who said what in the past, but rather about what the article should say in the future. — HHHIPPO

That is something to tell Strebe, not me. I was only pointing out that his assertion--that "[n]o one called a sphere a 3D surface"--was factually false.184.186.8.148 (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No contortion of English can make “A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body” into a statement that a sphere’s surface is 3D. User:184.186.8.148 knows there is more than one definition of “sphere” and knows the sentence was written with a different definition, but still applies the definition which is incorrect for the context anyway. Then User:184.186.8.148 ignores the semantics of the sentence whereby “body” makes plain that the antecedent of “three dimensional” is sphere and not surface. User:184.186.8.148 also ignores that the reading User:184.186.8.148 insists on is disqualified by the solecism that would result in making “other three dimensional body” parallel to “surface of a sphere”: “representing other three-dimensional body” is not a legitimate English construction. In sum, User:184.186.8.148 deliberately selects the wrong definition for the context, ignores the semantics of the sentence in order to rationalize a mangled syntactical choice so that User:184.186.8.148 can pretend it means something other than it does, and goes on to call this pretended meaning the “factual” interpretation of the original sentence, not even acknowledging that other interpretations exist, let alone that only other interpretations are justified by the syntax and semantics. Meanwhile there was never any danger any actual reader would misinterpret the sentence in the way User:184.186.8.148 insists; nor is there anything semantically incorrect or controversial about the sentence within the context of map projection nomenclature or normal English. Unfortunately, this is what we are dealing with. Strebe (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And this is our fundamental disagreement. I am confounded by your claim: "No contortion of English can make 'A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body' into a statement that a sphere’s surface is 3D." I think that a very reasonable reading of that sentence is that the surface of a sphere is 3d. That is why, to your consternation, I recommend the minor inclusion of an "of" for clarity: "the surface of a sphere or OF another . . .". In that way the ambiguity was removed. I mean, I can only provide my perspective--as a Wikipedia newbie but also a mathematician. When I read the sentence as you originally had it it seemed to me that you were saying that a sphere was 3-dimensional. Maybe I am an idiot and lack any facility with English, as you have suggested. But that does not strike me, objectively, as likely.184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"In mathematics, a distinction is made between the sphere (a two-dimensional closed surface embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space) and the ball, a three-dimensional shape which includes the interior of a sphere - I saw this dispute a few days ago on the map projection talk page. It looked to me like there was a clear consensus in the matter and it's only the IP who was in favour of using the mathematical definition rather than the cartological definition. In this case the article is clearly a cartological article and not a mathematical article, thus the establishes usage of sphere as a 3D object should be used. As far as I'm aware it's only the field of mathematics that makes such a distinction. If the IP is concerned, blue link sphere and anyone who is interested can simply click through and read about the mathematical definitions. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: - I think it is now clear that: i) nobody asserts, or ever asserted, that the surface of a sphere is 3D. User:184.186.8.148 knows it perfectly because he participated in the discussion held in the talk page from March 5 on. Going on pretending that is not the case is, to be benign, very difficult to explain; ii) as I wrote above, there is a broad consensus among the editors on how this question should be treated, in accordance with the available literature on map projections; the only exception is User:184.186.8.148. Question: why do we keep wasting our precious time with this sterile discussion? I ask again the present mediator (Cabe6403?) to close the thread. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Check the history page. That assertion was in fact made. I repeat:, Prior to my first edit the page read: "A map projection is any method of representing the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body". Check the 21 Feb. version. I don't know what a "sterile discussion" is, but you're not arguing in good faith here.

I ask the present mediator Cabe6403 for two things. (1) That we use consistent terminology throughout the article when talking about the reference surface. I recommend "sphere", but "surface of a ball" (e.g.) could also be used or "surface of the Earth". (2) That at no point in the article we refer to this surface as 3-dimensional (this point already seems to have been conceded by User:Strebe and User:Alvesgaspar). A third issue, which I am less insistent on but which still seems to be a good idea to me, is to include just a sentence or two at the top of the page noting that the article is focused on common projections, but that the mathematical concept is more general and need not only address going form curved 2-space to the plane.184.186.8.148 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion of noting the differences is it flies against WP:COMMONNAME. As I've mentioned before, only Mathematics distinguishes between a sphere and a ball in general use. Adding a note at the top of every page (if you do it to this one, why not every article referring to spheres?) is counter productive. The best option, in my opinion, is blue link sphere and allow the interested parties to click through. If someone is reading about map projection they aren't looking for mathematical definition of shapes, they are looking for cartological definitions.

Can I suggest, to make things clearest you propose the wording in the form of:

• Change this text here to this text here and a simple straw poll will suffice for now. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: I concur with Hhhippo's opening comments.184.186.8.148 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: It's worth noting that there is no disagreement in the substance of what 184.x and Alvesgaspar say immediately above about 2D vs 3D. The quotation provided by 184.x (noting language in the 21 Feb version of the article, i.e. "...the surface of a sphere or other three-dimensional body...") does not refute Alvesgaspar's statement, "nobody asserts, or ever asserted, that the surface of a sphere is 3D". The former statement is consistent with the surface being 2D (i.e. parsing it as "the surface of a [sphere or other three-dimensional body]", rather than "[the surface of a sphere] or [other three-dimensional body]"). It seems as though this is down to semantics, awaiting a structured, succinct proposal of change as requested by Cabe6403 above. -- Scray (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually Scray if you look at the history you will see several instances of claims that a sphere is 3D, because in the cartographical jargon, as Strebe has made clear, "sphere" is used for what is rigorously called a "ball".184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: If you want to use strictly correct terms, the surface of the earth (which is what the mapmakers are trying to depict on a flat sheet of paper) has a Fractal dimension. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually technically not (even though this is waaay outside the scope of the article here), because we have no embedding.184.186.8.148 (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

In response to Cabe6403, I offer these specific proposals. Note that I'm pretty happy the way the article currently looks, since we got rid of the factual errors. But I do think some minor improvements can still be made. Namely:

(1) Change sentence one FROM "A map projection is a systematic transformation of points on a sphere, a revolution ellipsoid or any other reference surface to points on a plane."

TO "A map projection is a systematic transformation of points on a sphere or other curved surface to points on a plane or other flat surface."

(2) In the "BACKGROUND" section: FROM "For simplicity of description, most of this article assumes that the surface to be mapped is that of a sphere. In reality, the Earth and other large celestial bodies are generally better modeled as oblate spheroids, whereas small objects such as asteroids often have irregular shapes. These other surfaces can be mapped as well. Therefore, more generally, a map projection is any method of "flattening" into a plane a continuous curved surface."

TO "For simplicity of description, most of this article assumes that the surface to be mapped is a sphere. In reality, the Earth and other large celestial bodies are generally better modeled as oblate spheroids, whereas small objects such as asteroids often have irregular shapes. The surfaces of these other objects can be mapped as well. Therefore, more generally, a map projection is any method of "flattening" into a plane a continuous curved surface.

(3) In "CHOOSING A MODEL FOR THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH" section: FROM "Selecting a model for a shape of the Earth involves choosing between the advantages and disadvantages of a sphere versus an ellipsoid."

TO "Selecting a model for the shape of the surface of the Earth involves choosing between the advantages and disadvantages of a sphere versus an ellipsoid."

Again, I think that the article as it currently stands is pretty good, although I do think that the first sentence is a little clunky.184.186.8.148 (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Reject. The proposed definition is WP:OR. Definitions should be cited from a source within the map projection literature.

2. Reject. The use of “sphere” connoting only the surface conflicts with the map projection literature and common usage.

3. Reject. The use of “sphere” connoting only the surface conflicts with the map projection literature and common usage. Strebe (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the opening comments of Hhhippo. However, I want to clarify an interpretation of the following sentence: "Where it is possible to keep this description consistent with the mathematical definitions of the terms used, without impairing the main goal, this should be done." I believe that the main goal is to communicate (correct) ideas (about map projections) effectively to the reader. To this end, "surface of a sphere" is preferable to just "sphere" because it clear to readers using either (both) definition(s) what is being referred to (the surface or volume). This terminology is also consistent with the pertinent field of cartography. Here are a few sources which choose the phrase "surface of a sphere" (in fact they are the first google hits from "map projections" that choose one of the two phrases):

http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/MapProjections/projections.html

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/mapping/a_projections.html

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa031599.htm

Notice the next link from that Google search takes the more mathematical route. This site is MathWorld, which (appropriately) assumes a mathematical audience.

1 Mixed. I like "A map projection is a systematic transformation of points on a sphere or other curved surface to points on a plane." I understand that "other flat surface" allows for inclusion of other dimensions, but I don't think that most readers are looking for this information and that the ones who would be interested in other dimensions will have no trouble interpreting the sentences in a dimensionless fashion.

2 Reject. Here the current wording is clearer. In particular, the wording "that of a sphere" gives precise meaning without assuming the reader uses one definition or the other (for 'sphere').

3 Mixed. I like "the shape of the Earth" better, but here I don't think the distinction "surface of" adds any clarity. The choosing of a 2-surface for modelling is equivalent to choosing a specific (simply-connected) 3-volume - so the ideas captured by the ambiguous definition are equivalent here. I disagree with Strebe and believe both choices would be consistent with common usage. Brent Perreault (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Reject. The scope is Cartography, not Mathematics. The definition should be consistent with map projection literature. I'm not happy with the sentence either but for the opposite reason: it should make clear that the concept applies to the Earth, hence the necessary reference to the sphere, the ellipsoide and (possibly) to geographic coordinates. Later on this can be generalized to other heavenly bodies.
2. Reject. I agree with Brent Perreault, no need to complicate or generalize.
3. Reject. The definition should be consistent with map projection literature. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Mediator Comment: once Boing! Said Z and HHHIPPO comment on the IPs proposal we can look at moving forward either with it or without it. IP, if consensus is against you are you willing to move on? I would suggest everyone take a read over WP:TIGER, it's usually relevant, especially in discussions like this Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If consensus is against me I'll of course move on. I've argued my side as vigorously as I can. I will say that I do not like these personal attacks at all. I don't think I'll be doing this again.184.186.8.148 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Mixed. The original seems clearer and better describing the scope of the article. In particular: revolution ellipsoid is important enough to be mentioned in the lede. I'm undecided about reference surface, it sounds essential but is only mentioned once in the rest of the article. Explicitly mentioning that the projection starts from a curved surface doesn't seem necessary to me, since the opposite case of a flat starting surface is trivial. Adding or other flat surface in the end is confusing since it remains unclear what a flat surface could be other than a plane.
2. Reject. The proposed version is incompatible with the cartographic definition of sphere used in this article.
3. Partly reject. I think adding the surface of reduces clarity and is not necessary, since there is no serious conflict between the original version and either definition of sphere. I agree though that the shape is better than a shape here. — HHHIPPO 19:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, didn't realise you were waiting for me. I reject the IPs proposals for the same reasons as Strebe and Alvesgaspar - the article should be using cartographic convention, not mathematical convention, as the majority of people here keep saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Let me start by saying that I haven't been active because of lots of homework, and for that I apologize. Back to the topic however, few say that the mathematical form of sphere is incorrect, and in any case is irrelevant. The problem seems to be whether sphere's mathematical definition is sutible for cartography. We should focus on that, not on the definition. Personally, I recognize a sphere as three-dimensional with a surface that is two-dimensional, using sinmple definitions. If 184.186.8.148 still disagrees with using "surface of sphere", then I propose leaving a "(see: Sphere)" note at the end of the sentence. --MGray98 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.184.186.8.148 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Which one? --MGray98 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• There's no need to say "(see: Sphere)" - you just need to Wikilink the word. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree, a link is enough. Also, I see no need to establish any kind of text or guidelines since there is a broad consensus on the essential. The article should now be returned to normal edition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:00, 13 March 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.