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

• 5:2 diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Freeranging intellect (talk · contribs)
• ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This issue concerns wording on the 5:2 diet page. Another Editor has a very particular point of view which (in my opinion) is being forced onto the article without neutrality. The Editor refuses to compromise.

The issues center on two (related) parts of the article:

1) The first (defining) sentence currently reads: "The 5:2 diet, also written as 5/2 diet, is a fad diet[1] which involves ...". I disagreed with the word 'fad' here and removed it for two reasons: 1) This is an opinion that many would disagree with so should not define the concept (it can instead be debated in the text) and 2) By definition, we cannot know that a recent phenomenon is a fad until it has come and gone (e.g., the automobile could have incorrectly been called a 'fad' when it was invented). By definition, a fad is ""A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time". Similarly, a "fad diet" is "a reducing diet that enjoys temporary popularity". We do not (yet) know if it is temporary, therefore cannot yet say whether or not it is a fad.

Therefore, I removed the word 'fad' but ZarlanTheGreen kept re-introducing it, refusing to acknowledge that this is not a universal perspective. I maintain that including 'fad diet' is equivalent to something like 'proven diet' in the sense that the adjective enforces a disputed claim. Put simply, 'diet' alone is fine and neutral. In the spirit of compromise, I added "The 5:2 diet, also written as 5/2 diet, is a controversial diet. Some claim the diet is effective, while others argue that it is a fad." but ZarlanTheGreen refused this too.

2) The Evidence section is very incomplete. I added an entire balanced paragraph citing various scientific studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5:2_diet&diff=589052247&oldid=589051767), which Zarlan kept deleting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have talked this through on the talk page and I tried various alternatives but ZarlanTheGreen will not compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Please help talk through how the article can be worded appropriately.

Summary of dispute by ZarlanTheGreen

The discussion in the talk page has barely begun, and already a DRN is asked for... I see no problem in it, that could possibly warrant a DRN, at such an early stage.

The 5:2 diet being called a fad diet is verified by reliable sources. No valid reason has been presented, as to why it isn't one.
The objection concerning the word "fad", ignores that a "fad diet" doesn't have to be a "fad" (as is pointed out in Fad_diet#Fad_diets)
...and the notion that there is debate about the efficacy of the diet is nonsense.
There is no debate among any reliable sources and there is no scientific/academic debate about the subject. Certainly, there are proponents and practitioners of the diet, who claim that it is effective, but that is true of all fad diets (as well as all other pseudo-scientific beliefs), so that is meaningless and irrelevant.

I have tried to do my best to point out the issues, and what Freeranging intellect needs to clarify in his/her arguments and what evidence he/she needs to present, yet I have just been labelled as biased and unwilling to compromise.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

5:2 diet discussion

Hi, I am Mdann52. I will be helping to resolve this dispute. I am going to accept this, purely because I would rather see this resolved here than at another board, where sanctions are likely to be more severe. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52 - thank you for taking on this dispute. I maintain that the other user is unwilling to compromise because despite numerous edits (with peer-reviewed scientific sources), the other Editor did everything they can to keep the page exactly the same. No compromise-edits were made. None of my sources were kept. The Editor just did removed everything I contributed - compromise would have been keeping something. Here are a few relevant points on the topic of the debate:

1) The source that the other Editor insists is the be-all-and-end-all on 'fad' [1] is from the UK health service. The health service is not an authority on what is, or is not, a fad. That's a question for sociologists, or other related domains.

2) I provided plenty of very well respected scientific journal articles as evidence but for reasons no one would understand, the other Editor doesn't think they are 'scientific'(!). Here are two paragraphs I contributed with well regarded sources: (note that the Editor kept none of this - just deleted all my work):

Animal research into fasting diets has generally produced promising findings^[1]. For example: "The findings in animals suggest that ADF [alternate-day fasting] may effectively modulate several risk factors, thereby preventing chronic disease, and that ADF may modulate disease risk to an extent similar to that of CR [caloric restriction]." ^[2]. However, very little human research has been conducted, partly due to the time required before long-term benefits or risks can be assessed. One recent study in young overweight women reported positive benefits ^[3], but larger studies are greatly needed.

Coverage by media outlets has been mixed on the topic of the 5:2 diet, including positive ^[4], negative ^[5] and mixed perspectives ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Freeranging intellect did mention (indirectly) peer-reviewed scientific sources, sure ...but those sources don't support Freeranging intellect's claims, as I have already explained in the talk page.

"The Editor just did removed everything I contributed - compromise would have been keeping something."

That is an unreasonable request. The additions were removed, as they didn't comply with Wikipedia rules. Sources were used to support what wasn't in the sources, claims were made that weren't verified by reliable sources and sources were used that don't count as reliable.

On the issue of fad... I have explained both here and on the talk page, that "fad" and "fad diet" are not the same thing. It seems Freeranging intellect won't understand that, and I don't know what more to say or how to explain it better.

Oh, and to claim that the huffington post article was "mixed" concerning the diet, is nonsense. To quote from the article:

"Further research is needed to look at the long term effects of this diet on weight."

"The issues can come on the fasting days, when the fasting can impair concentration and mood plus making it difficult and not sensible to exercise, so this diet could be impractical."

"I am not a fan of anything to do with fasting because I feel it can be a short sighted approach to lifestyle and can lead to binge/purge cycle for anyone prone to disordered eating."

"there is still limited evidence supporting the ideal intermittent fasting pattern, ideal calorie consumption and the sustainability of the diet, therefore always should be carried out under medical and dietetic supervision."

Those are all opinions that it is a diet that has, so far, not enough evidence ...and besides. It's not a reliable source, anyway.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have been doing some background research into this, and I am trying to work out what the majority of sources say, and whether I can find any more papers on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments

(edit conflict)Looking through the discussion, there seems to be two main sources by the NHS quoted, both giving slightly differing views. The main one around this dispute seems to be this one. Reading through it, it seems to indicate the diet may have benefits. Can either party find any more sources? I have also spotted this saying it is a fad, and this which is a balanced article saying both sides.

The other thing I am interested knowing is if either party has a WP:COI, either with the book, or the diet. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No COI here. Here are the references I contributed for the above paragraph:

4: Varady, K. A., & Hellerstein, M. K. (2007). Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(1), 7–13.

5: Varady, K. A., & Hellerstein, M. K. (2007). Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(1), 7–13.

6: Harvie, M. N., Pegington, M., Mattson, M. P., Frystyk, J., Dillon, B., Evans, G., … Howell, A. (2011). The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women. International Journal of Obesity, 35(5), 714–727. doi:10.1038/ijo.2010.171

7: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25549805

8: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/10276180/The-52-diet-con-why-theres-a-better-option-that-starving-yourself-silly.html

9: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/mediterranean-diet-paleo-diet-52-diet-verdict_n_4493056.html

The more "balanced" article in the telegraph, that you mention, while positive towards the diet, does confirm my case:

"Intermittent fasting is not something that you will find many doctors recommending because, while there is plenty of animal data, so far there is limited evidence of its efficacy in long-term human trials."

"According to current medical opinion, the benefits of fasting are unproven. As a diet, it is not recommended for pregnant women or diabetics on medication. Anyone considering a diet that involves fasting is advised to consult their GP first, and to do it under medical supervision."

...but more importantly: It's not a news article, it's the opinion of one individual. It's an opinion piece ...which does not count as a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of the individual in question.

More importantly, however, to quote from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations:

"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name."

...and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press

"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles."

On the issue of a conflict of interest... I have already given my response concerning that.

What reason do you have, to suspect me of a conflict of interest? If you have none, yet ask me about it... is that not a failure to WP:assume good faith? ...oh and "the book"? What book? Surely there are countless books, about the 5:2 diet?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Although you are addressing Mdann52 here, I will point out that your link does not answer the question - it merely deflects it. Two wikipedia editors have asked if you have a COI and you decline to answer. A COI is important for the many reasons listed in the page that Mdann52 linked to. Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The question is invalid. As I've already pointed out: There is no valid reason to suspect or accuse me of COI. To do so, without any valid reason, is to assume bad faith. Present some reason or evidence. Then I'll answer.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The BBC source appears to refer to a 2:5 diet (5 days fasting, not 2)... Looking into the rest now. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very recent paper (found by searching pubmed for 5:2 diet): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24394799 Freeranging intellect (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This analyses NHS services, and does not mention the 5:2 diet at all. I am falling more towards the inclusion point of view at the moment, lacking any real sources showing otherwise; Counting just sources on this page, it seems fairly clear that calling it a fad diet is justifiable. I shall leave this open for another 24 hours in case something else comes up. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one confusion in all this is that the 5:2 diet is a caloric restriction (which has got evidence - e.g., 600 kCal mentioned in this article). Perhaps the article could mention that the 5:2 diet is an example of caloric restriction, which has some evidence, although this diet itself does not. Also, could you respond to the evidence paragraph we are discussing as well (my point 2) - thanks. Freeranging intellect (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean this: 2) The Evidence section is very incomplete. I added an entire balanced paragraph citing various scientific studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5:2_diet&diff=589052247&oldid=589051767), which Zarlan kept deleting.

There is nothing as quite as frustrating as spending time putting together a paragraph to have the other party just delete the whole thing, without keeping a single part. Freeranging intellect (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for calorie restricted diets, is not evidence (not even partial) for the 5:2 diet. The diet described doesn't include any fasting, which is a vital element of the 5:2 diet. Hence it is completely irrelevant.

As to your frustration... Wikipedia is not here to make you happy. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Your frustration has no relevance to what should or shouldn't be included. It does not entitle you to anything.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As we consider whether there is any scientific evidence (which could be included in the evidence section of the article), the very NHS article that Zarlan loves mentions some:

"But since this article was originally written in January 2013 we have been alerted to research, led by Dr Michelle Harvie, which did look at the 5:2 model. In one study carried out in 2010 the researchers did find that women placed on a 5:2 diet achieved similar levels of weight loss as women placed on a calorie-controlled diet. They also experienced reductions in a number of biological indicators (biomarkers) that suggest a reduction in the risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. A further study in 2012 suggested that the 5:2 model may help lower the risk of certain obesity-related cancers, such as breast cancer. The increasing popularity of the 5:2 diet should lead to further research of this kind."

My question is: Why does Zarlan not want this perspective on the page? Freeranging intellect (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Solution #1

From the sources brought up so far. I feel the sources are not really relevant overall, but I would like to suggest a compromise :

• Keep the phrase "Fad diet" in the Lede
• Add something to the 'evidence' section like "One study has found that females on the 5:2 diet achieved weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet ^[7], however the NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[8]

Of course, this is only one possible solution, but I would be interested what you all think of it. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The study you cite in your example, has nothing to do with the 5:2 diet (alternate day fasting is not the 5:2 diet. It's more like a 1:1 diet).

There are no studies that show any benefit from the 5:2 diet in humans. The best I've seen is one study that compares the 5:2 diet to a CER (continuous energy restriction) diet, over the course of six months, and concludes that they are comparable, in terms of weight loss. This is fairly pointless, though. Many (if not most) fad diets can provide effective, short term, weight loss. This does not, however, mean that the diet is either safe, healthy or maintainable. That it can cause short term weight loss is hardly notable.

If you wish to provide a compromise, citing things in the 5:2 diet's favour, you need to actually come up with things that are genuinely in its favour, and which is verified by reliable sources. Otherwise, it has no place in Wikipedia.

As I see it, this attempt at a solution only serves to create a false balance (see also the related fallacy: argument to moderation). Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a WP:neutral point of view, but that does not mean that we are supposed to create the notion of balance, where there is none. Please note WP:VALID and WP:DUE.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with the reasonable solution Mdann proposes. And on the study that Zarlan mentions, I would say that many people would not consider weight loss over 6 months to be "hardly notable" - it is in fact very notable for a diet. Although we do not know the expected long-term weight loss, 6-month weight loss is better than many diets and in fact could be useful on its own (e.g., for an actor preparing for a movie or getting ready for a wedding, or something else). I'm not sure what length of time you think is 'notable' but 6 months seems reasonably notable to me (particularly because we can actually state that while it leads to weight loss after 6 months, we do not know whether this will be sustained due to lack of research in this area). Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Freeranging intellect: re-reviewing the information here, I am afraid I will have to side towards Zarlan unless you can come up with another connected scientific study, or several relevant sources (not opinion pieces, as many cited ones are...), or unless you can propose a comprimise. I will keep this open for around 24 hours, then close it if now new ideas emerges. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

::@Mdann52: Here are some peer-reviewed scientific papers in humans that would support including at least one sentence that there is some early positive evidence (with further research needed). If none of these scientifically recognized sources are sufficient, then there is not much more I can do.

1) From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 [in the British Journal of Nutrition].

Evidence that this is relevant to the 5:2 diet: "Overweight women (n 115) aged 20 and 69 years with a family history of breast cancer were randomised to an overall 25% energy restriction, either as an IECR (2500-2717 kJ/d, < 40 g carbohydrate/d for 2 d/week) - i.e., calorie restriction on 2 days.

Relevant results: "Insulin resistance reduced with the IECR diets (mean - 0·34 (95% CI - 0·66, - 0·02) units) and the IECR+PF diet (mean - 0·38 (95% CI - 0·75, - 0·01) units). Reductions with the IECR diets were significantly greater compared with the DER diet (mean 0·2 (95% CI - 0·19, 0·66) μU/unit, P= 0·02). Both IECR groups had greater reductions in body fat compared with the DER group (IECR: mean - 3·7 (95% CI - 2·5, - 4·9) kg, P= 0·007; IECR+PF: mean - 3·7 (95% CI - 2·8, - 4·7) kg, P= 0·019; DER: mean - 2·0 (95% CI - 1·0, 3·0) kg). During the weight maintenance phase, 1 d of IECR or IECR+PF per week maintained the reductions in insulin resistance and weight. In the short term, IECR is superior to DER with respect to improved insulin sensitivity and body fat reduction."

2) From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964 [in the International Journal of Obesity]

Evidence that this is relevant to the 5:2 diet: "Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women"

Relevant results: "IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk."

3) From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14671185 [in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism]

Evidence that this is relevant to the 5:2 diet: "we investigated the effects of 2-d very low calorie diet (VLCD) and subsequent refeeding on adiponectin mRNA expression in sc adipose tissue of morbidly obese women"

Relevant results: " Insulin sensitivity of the responder subgroup significantly increased by 89% (P = 0.008) after the VLCD"

4) From a respected science magazine, Scientific American [2]:

"Even if calorie restriction does not help anyone live longer, a large portion of the data supports the idea that limiting food intake reduces the risks of diseases common in old age and lengthens the period of life spent in good health. If only one could claim those benefits without being hungry all the time. There might be a way. In recent years researchers have focused on a strategy known as intermittent fasting as a promising alternative to continuous calorie restriction. Intermittent fasting, which includes everything from periodic multiday fasts to skipping a meal or two on certain days of the week, may promote some of the same health benefits that uninterrupted calorie restriction promises." [Note reference to "periodic multiday fasts to skipping a meal or two on certain days of the week", thus encompassing the 5:2 diet] Freeranging intellect (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Again, it's only short term weight loss.

2. I've already gone over this study in the talk page and here. You were asked for new studies (i.e. new to us). This one is old news.

3. Again: Short term. Heck it even says so in the title.

4. To quote from the article: "/.../[intermittent fasting's] long-term effects in people remain uncertain" "/.../the literature on intermittent fasting also includes several red flags." "And some weight-loss experts are skeptical about fasting, citing its hunger pangs and the possible dangers of compensatory gorging. Indeed, the most recent primate study on calorie restriction—the one that failed to extend life span—underscores the need for caution when radically altering the way people eat." It mentions several experiments on rats, but no real positive long term evidence in humans. Only speculation.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN may be able to have more information on the sources and their reliability. For now, I will keep this open, until either a compromise is met, or this goes stale. The best solution I feel is the following refined pharagraph :

<quote>One study has found that females on the 5:2 diet achieved short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet ^[9], However, there is no evidence how the 5:2 diet affects long-term weight loss. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[10]</quote> --Mdann52talk to me! 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As the sentence @Mdann52: has proposed is factual, I would support this. It also respects the reader, by allowing them to use or not use this information as they see fit. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN does not currently have any information on the sources we are discussing, and I see no reason to consult WP:RSN. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources is clear enough, I'd say.

As I've said: Short term efficacy at short term weight loss, is fairly typical of fad diets. It's nothing that is particularly notable or unusual. Furthermore it is not confirmed how safe or healthy it is (in either the short, or long, term) to use the diet (in either the short, or long, term).

Still, I guess a mention of its short term efficacy at short term weight loss, may be fine... How about this:

<quote>As with most fad diets^[11], there is some evidence that 5:2 diet can achieve short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet, in females ^[12]. However, there is no data on how safe or healthy, even a short term use of the diet is, nor how good it is for weight loss in the long term. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[13]</quote>--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with this statement IF it begins at "There is some evidence that . . ." You have already included a 'fad diet' reference so those first few words are redundant and unnecessary. It is also just an attempt to get those words in AGAIN. Not exactly the spirit of cooperation that a wikipedia editor should display. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, to draw on both of your views.... <quote>There is some evidence that 5:2 diet can achieve short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet, in females ^[14]. However, there is no data on how safe or healthy, even a short term use of the diet is, nor how good it is for weight loss in the long term^[15]. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[16]</quote>. This draws on both the view that it helps in the short term, with a reference that it may not be as good in the long term. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"You have already included a 'fad diet' reference so those first few words are redundant and unnecessary."
To say that it is redundant is like saying that any mention of "like most cars", in an article about a model of car, is redundant, because it has already been said that it is a car. You're just being silly, here.
"It is also just an attempt to get those words in AGAIN. Not exactly the spirit of cooperation that a wikipedia editor should display."
You are assuming to know what my intent is, in making that mention!? On what grounds do you think you can make such an assumption? Are you able to read my mind, perhaps? To make an assumption of my intent, and assume that it is bad, is an assumption of bad faith. That is, most certainly, not the behaviour of civility that a Wikipedia editor should display. Before you try to accuse me of not complying with Wikipedia rules, I'd suggest you learn a bit more about them, yourself.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That looks mostly good. I'd suggest a slight modification, though:

<quote>There is some evidence that 5:2 diet can achieve short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet, in females ^[17]. However, such results are fairly common for fad diets like this^[18] and there is no data on how safe or healthy, even a short term use of the diet is, nor how good it is for weight loss in the long term. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[19]</quote>--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is almost comical at this point. And Zarlan - I know you cannot see why. But on to the topic, the phrase "However, such results are fairly common for fad diets like this" should be removed. Then I am ok with that statement. For very up-to-date evidence that its 'fad diet' status is not established (despite what Zarlan would have everyone believe), see the first 3 sentences in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25592458. Remember whether we agree or disagree with this is not the point. The point is that this source directly contradicts yours and actually says "this is not a fad". Now, I am not going to follow your approach by adding works like "However, such results are fairly common for long-established diets like this". Instead, I say just drop the sentence - the source I have provided shows that the fad-view is not unanimous (in fact is directly argued against) so should not be included as such. Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I've said several times already: Opinion pieces, even if they are from a news organization, are not reliable sources! (and news organizations are questionable sources for these issues, anyway)

Furthermore "fasting is not a fad" is not a statement on the fad status of the "specific" fasting method of 5:2 ...and, as I've already explained, it's fad status is irrelevant to its status as a fad diet, but you seem not to be capable of understanding that.

The 5:2 diet is a fad diet. There exists no reliable sources that say otherwise. This is a simple fact.

Most fad diets are quite able to produce short term weight loss, and efficacy at short term weight loss is therefore very common and unremarkable. Again, this is a simple fact.

If you are unwilling to accept these facts... well that's not my problem and there is no obligation for Wikipedia to cater to your personal convictions.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a 'simple fact'. Some sources say it is a fad diet. Others say it is not. You cannot simply state your preferred opinion as a 'simple fact' when others disagree. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Freeranging intellect (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Show me a reliable source, that says that it isn't a fad diet, then.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note: I have not read this whole thread so it may well be that the current discussion is progressing, in which case you are free to continue if all parties, including the moderator, wish to do so. However, if this discussion is not working, for some reason, then interested parties may want to consider an WP:RFC or formal WP:MEDIATION. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That would only be a needless complication and cause this issue to drag on for even longer.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If needed, I am in favor of taking it to the next level - I am in for the long haul. Although we are down to just a few words being disputed now. Freeranging intellect (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! If you've found some common ground and there are "just a few words being disputed" then by all means please finish up. I'll step out of the way and let you continue :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: , do you have any thoughts on this? ZarlanTheGreen wanted to add (yet another) reference to 'Fad diet' into your suggested paragraph, which seems redundant and adversarial to me, but in any case I welcome your thoughts on the above discussion. Freeranging intellect (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I`would simply like to remind anyone who reads the above comment, that I have already given my answer, concerning the issues that are mentioned in it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall, I feel that Zarlan's is the most appropriate, down to sourcing etc. I suggest the following is inserted:

<quote>There is some evidence that 5:2 diet can achieve short-term weight loss similar to a calorie controlled diet, in females ^[20]. However, such results are fairly common for fad diets like this^[21] and there is no data on how safe or healthy, even a short term use of the diet is, nor how good it is for weight loss in the long term. The NHS says that there is still limited evidence for this diet, and "compared to other types of weight loss programmes the evidence base of the safety and effectiveness of the 5:2 diet is limited. If you are considering it then you should first talk to your GP to see if it is suitable for you"^[22]</quote>.

It seems that it presents a balanced viewpoint, referring to how it compares to similar diets and is neutrally worded. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well - I will now update the 5:2 diet page and consider this closed. Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is exactly what I proposed. Either way, I have no issues with it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2014 (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

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

Users involved

• Nabuchadnessar (talk · contribs)
• Lazyfoxx (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe the introductory paragraph of the page misrepresented a source, which in itself is neither reliable, authoritative nor specialised on the subject matter. Upon correcting the section to better represent the source, my edit was reverted. The user also provided a highly unreliable source (a book on Arabic terms) as proof of the ethnic origin and history of the Ghassanid Arabs. I have provided further source, though I don'tknow how to cite them in the text. The user also makes unsourced claims.

The dispute relates to whether the Ghassanids were Hellenised or not, whether they were "South Arabians", "Arabs" or "Bedouins". The evolution of the word "Arab" since the late bronze age (late antiquity in this discussion) also presents a challange.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion of sources in talk page. I feel this has reached a stalemate on many issues, with failure of the other user to acknowledge/recognise/understand my arguements.

How do you think we can help?

Facilitate more productive discission.

Summary of dispute by Lazyfoxx

Two reliable sources show that Ghassanids were a South Arabian Christian people who migrated to the Levant where they were Hellenized and some inter-married with the local Roman Greek-Speaking communities of the Levant. The user who reverted did so under their belief that the sources are unreliable or misinterpreted, while both sources fit the criteria for WP:RS. The user also confuses the term Bedouin with Arab. In no sources presented are the Ghassanids referred to as Bedouins, yet the disputed edit made [here] asserts this claim. The user also added that the Ghassanids followed "Arabian Polytheism, later converting to Monophysitism Christianity, and then most converted to Islam" But there is no source provided that supports this claim that "most converted to Islam". On the contrary, here are a few sources showing that some Arab Christians of the Levant today actually descend from the Ghassanids who intermarried with the local population. ^[1][2][3][4] Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinators note

Hi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanids talk page discussion

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Tabled status of international views (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BlueSalix (talk · contribs)
• Kahastok (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a discussion on a Talk page, Kahastok declared I had engaged in "personal attacks" against him and that I was unable to be "civil." I was not aware of any such attacks but, out of an abundance of caution, immediately apologized for any perceived slights and then self-reported myself to ANI so the thread would not be derailed and, if necessary, I could be immediately sanctioned. (see: here).

Drmies reviewed the discussion and informed me I had not made personal attacks.

After this decision, I then returned to the talk discussion. Immediately upon my return, Kahastok again declared I had been engaging in personal attacks against him.

At this point, having never engaged with Kahastok previously, I looked at his Talk page and edit history. I note that Jonathunder and others have previously cautioned him about attacking the motives of other editors and, while I want to AGF, it appears his repeated accusations of me making personal attacks - after being assured by third party admins that I am not - is a Talk derailment strategy he employs to shut-down discussions on edits he opposes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have (a) previously self-reported to ANI, and, (b) attempted to disengage from Kahastok by posting gentle "concluding" messages in the Talk page such as "I'm sure we'll both be interested in what others have to contribute now." These efforts only seem to further enrage Kahastok.

How do you think we can help?

Kahastok has previously declared he will not go to "the drama boards," but I hope, nonetheless, he might reconsider his Talk strategy and reframe it into a more collaborative approach if so advised by additional editors.

Summary of dispute by Kahastok

Opening statement is not related to content. This is the second form of DR that BlueSalix that taken this to - plus ANI - and it's been open less than 36 hours (the other was an RFC, first opened less than three hours after the first post was made). None of them were necessary or beneficial. I have asked why and was told that I was going to turn the thing into "a dick-measuring contest" and that I was "part of a public diplomacy effort by one side or the other to suppress the appearance of [various things]". IOW, the only reason we are told we need DR is a personal attack.

I reject the need for any DR at this stage in the proceedings, including the RFC, ANI and DRN. If we could just have a discussion, we might be able to reach consensus on our own. Insisting that we must instead do this in the pressure cooker of RFC or other dispute resolution, particularly when the only reason for it is founded on a personal attack, without even trying to get a consensus on our own, makes the whole thing much harder. Kahastok talk 07:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note: I did not say Kahastok was harboring ill-will and planning to turn the discussion into "a dick-measuring contest" and that he was "part of a public diplomacy effort." When Kahastok exclaimed why I had requested a RfC and then deleted the RfC tag I explained: RfC is necessary to avoid likely WP:CIVIL issues. This article is of wide disinterest to the greater WP community due to its heavy patrolling by the residents of two tiny countries (Argentina and Britain) who have an historic rivalry. An immediate RfC is the only way to inject a more diverse worldview by the greater WP community and avoid this turning into a dick-measuring contest. The discussion thread contains everything I wrote in the context in which I wrote it and I welcome its review. As per previous reviewing admins, I stand by the civility of my comments in that thread. If one reviews it one will note I went to extreme efforts to maintain a pleasant demeanor in the face of a very aggressive style of commenting. BlueSalix (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Tabled_status_of_international_views 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

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

Users involved

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs)
• Devanampriya (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. I have provided a reliable source that states that the Dharmachakra is of hindu origin and incorporated it into a small part of the article body.

2. A second editor has been edit-warring, deleting this sourced content on the basis of his original research (focused on tangential issue), rather than directly-related WP:RS.

• He generally opposes hindu association with the dharmachakra, despite evidence and direct quote from WP:RS.
• After intensive discussion and demonstration of adverse WP:RS, still refuses to acknowledge any contravening evidence.
• Previously advanced WP:FRINGE theory about nordic origin of dharmachakra as bargaining chip. When for the sake of compromise I agreed to it with condition of relocation, he subsequently removed it and then demanded removal of hindu content.
• Dispute now back to square 1, demanding removal of this sourced content

3. A third user originally supported hindu origin(thanked me for edit) and expanded content, but after several days of uncompromising opposition by second user, now just wants to end the discussion based on second user's refusal to reach consensus or make any compromise.

I provided supplementary sources asserting hinduism's greater antiquity than buddhism. See hereand here. One American source directly states that Buddhism was an "outgrowth" of Hinduism. Despite this, second editor still relies on original research to contest Yan source assertion of hindu origin. Request recommendation on how to proceed in treating hindu origin content on dharmachakra article based on sources.

I should briefly add, that the wikipedia Hinduism article has retained sources such as Klostermaier(which I gave above)--so the charges of "not reliable" are, well, not reliable.

• Klostermaier (whom I cited above), is a Professor of Sanskrit and Hinduism who taught at Oxford. His work is Klostermaier, Klaus K. (2007), A Survey of Hinduism: Third Edition, SUNY Press
• Morgan (whom I cited above), was a Professor of Religion educated at and affiliated with the Harvard Divinity School who uses D.S. Sarma's article in his work The Religion of the Hindus. Sarma was a professor at Vivekananda College and published numerous books on pre-buddhist hindu texts such as the Upanishads.
• Both are from the Hinduism article--where note 2 pretty much negates the opposing certainty about "mainstream scholarship"--since the "hinduism is oldest religion" mainstream sources are convincingly the majority. And respected news magazines such as Time are accepted reliable sources for statements of fact and predominating views.

There are many other additional sources, which can be provided on arbitrator request, but the main point of blunting this original research assertion of "no hinduism then so no hindu origin" as some foregone conclusion or "mainstream majority scholarship view" has been served. The floating of a relatively new theory about Hinduism's age--despite the long-standing consensus among western and other scholars about how it's older than Buddhism--does not make Yan's dharmachakra view unreliable, since mainstream majority scholarship backs her up on the chronology. Refusal to see preponderant mainstream scholarship viewing hinduism as the oldest religion thereby opposing his offered sources is not a basis for stalling the process, or in laymen's terms WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Thus for the second editor (JJ) to present his recent "theory" about buddhism being older than hinduism as controlling fact or "the truth" or the majority view is misleading to say the least. In contrast to his sources (all from the last 10 years demonstrating how this theory has yet to be validated and is still being tested--much like JJ's nordic dharmachakra fringe theory courtesy of Dr. Wolf-Dieter Storl - ethnobotanist), my sources run the gamut starting from the 1950s into the late 2000s. This demonstrates that the long-standing, preponderant, and continuous view among western and indian scholars of sanskrit, history, and religion has been that hinduism is older than buddhism, and that buddhism is in fact an offshoot of hinduism. Rather than a "limited minority", it is the preponderant majority (as shown above).

It is not for the wiki-editor to use his presumed knowledge "of fact" against a scholar like Yan, but to cite a scholar discussing the dharmachakra, specifically contradicting Yan's hindu origin assertion on the dharmachakra. He has not done that--hence the validity of the charge of his Original Research WP:OR. I believe the article talk speaks for itself, and the editor's unwillingness to collaborate, only impose, and breach good faith through stealth edit warring.

(Updated) "it will be hard to find such a straight contradiction, since no author". And there we have it, folks: No source, no contradiction, no claim. JJ just conceded to my point above that he failed to provide a single source contradicting Yan's assertion of hindu origin. This shows he's relying on WP:OR as an excuse to edit war and POV-push. What's worse is he's pretending Samuel (whom he's used ad nauseam on multiple articles, including Yoga, Hinduism, and this one) is gospel. Note 2 on Hinduism shows a clear majority in favor of Hinduism's greater antiquity to Buddhism. JJ makes a false claim that his view is somehow uncontested mainstream. Proof is in the pudding. So that's strike 1 on adverse authority to Yan, strike 2 on bad faith claim to "majority/mainstream" view, and strike 3 on WP:Original Research...where's an Umpire when you need one. Devanampriya (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extended discussion on talk over several days, Request for Comment

How do you think we can help?

Please assist us in determining how sourced content (1 sentence) on hindu origin should be treated in the "dharmachakra article".

Summary of dispute by Joshua Jonathan

The source in question states in a note that the Dharmachakra "is a Buddhist symbol of Hindu origin". At the time of the Buddha, 500 BCE, there was no Hinduism. Hinduism emerged as a "synthesis" of various traditions around the beginning of the CE; see

• Hiltebeitel 2007 p.12, Routledge;
• Nath 2001 p.20, Social Scientist (journal) 2001, pp. 19-50, full quote at Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section;
• Samuel 2001 p.195, Cambridge University Press:

"The establishment of Brahmanical Hinduism as a state religion can be associated above all with the Gupta dynasty in North and Central India (c. 320-c. 510 CE). I use the term 'Brahmanical Hinduism' here, because I think that if we want to use the term Hinduism at all before the nineteenth century then this is the point at which we can reasonably start using it." (Samuel 2010 p.195)

The sources provided by Devanampriya are unreliable c.q. do not support his claim; see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra; the "one American source" is a Time Magazine article from 1959, which is contradicted by contemporary scholarship:

"In arguing for the fundamental commonality of the Indic religious background (a very different position, it should be added, from seeing Buddhism merely as a development from or a reaction to 'Hinduism', which is a position that by now has hopefully lost any scholarly respectability it may once have had)" (Samuel 2010 p.13)

So, I think Devanampriya makes a claim based on one source, which he found by a Google-search diff specifically searching for "dharma chakra" hindu wisdom, used it out of context to give WP:UNDUE attention to Hinduism, calling my questioning of this "info" "original research", neglecting recent scholarship which he calls "fringe theory".

The problem at stake here is WP:RS and WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

We're not even talking about a "minority" here, we're talking about misusing a single source which is flat-out contradicted by mainstream scholarship.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment regarding "contradicting Yan's hindu origin assertion on the dharmachakra"': it will be hard to find such a straight contradiction, since no author, let alone a scholar on Indian or Hindu-history, has made such a statement, except Yan, in a note without further references. This is simply not a scholarly issue, only a Wikipedia issue created by an uncritical editor Google-searching for any source that supports his view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bladesmulti

I don't disagree with the edits by the either users. But what happens is, whenever Devanampriya adds anything similar to "dharmachakra is of Hindu origin", Joshua Jonathan would attribute it, either by adding that there wasn't such term "Hinduism" that time(which is similar to Buddhism term), or that he would add the other related/suggested origins.

Which seems to be common in nature, especially when both users are concerned about promoting their knowledge. Joshua Jonathan later seeks for the credibility of the source, Devanampriya described. But if I was in the place, I would be just using other source. In fact some sources related to this page are being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But its very hard to consider that there will be a solution, since both editors like explained above are adamant for their versions. Either one has to be agreed, or the version that i propose would be.[3] or the latest.[4]Bladesmulti (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dharmachakra 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

• Criticism of the theory of relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LCcritic (talk · contribs)
• Paradoctor (talk · contribs)
• DVdm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

(Second attempt after "badtoken" error prompt.) Quoted sources documenting relativity's philosophical basis in idealism, and criticism from realism are not allowed.

• Question Can you please add more to this? It will allow a moderator to quickly and efficiently assist you. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As per request, more detail transcribed from my talk page summary: My specific request concerned the refusal by editors to allow quotes from Einstein himself clearly stating that he is not a realist and from Godel and others, that relativity is based on idealism. Nor would they allow a comparison of accepted definitions contrasting idealism and realism vis-a-vis the specific issue of "objective science" (as well defined) in contrast to relativity's basis as an observer (frame) dependent (idealistic) philosophy of science. I chose the user name LCcritic because the most obvious example of a well criticized flaw in special relativity theory is found in the very prevalent mainstream "camp" which insists that physical objects (including Earth) and the distances between them vary ("length is not invariant") in dimensions, as per "length contraction," with the velocity and in the direction of travel of all manner of different relativistic frames of reference. To be clear, this is not just my personal point of view but a ubiquitous historical and contemporary criticism of SR, not allowed anywhere in Wiki's coverage of relativity. LCcritic (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Much discussion on various user talk pages besides the article talk page above and at "talk, philosophy of science (physics subsection)"; "talk, length contraction," and "talk, relativity of simultaneity."

How do you think we can help?

Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism.

Summary of dispute by Paradoctor

Sorry, my bad. Basically, LCcritic seems to understand relativity as saying that length contraction is a physical process, rather than the result of a change in reference system, and appears to have construed this as proof that relativity is an idealist theory. He tries to support the latter with a Gödel quote which states that relativity proves the Parmenidean view of change as an illusion.

Summary of dispute by DVdm

Sorry for being late with this. I didn't understand what would be on topic here. I hope the following complies.

It looks like user LCcritic wants the article Criticism of the theory of relativity to mention that relativity is an idealist theory and he would source that with statements, made under various circumstances by Einstein, Gödel, and others. To me this looks like synthesis (wp:SYNTH), a form of original research (w:OR). In my opinion it could well be true that these authors held some idealistic views about some aspects of the world, but I see no way for such views to establish a criticism of the theory, which is the subject of the article. Such statement would therefore be essentially off-topic. On top of that, almost a century later, it seems that it is commonly agreed that relativity—on the contrary—is very much a realist theory. For example:^[1]

"It is commonly agreed that neither special relativity theory nor general relativity theory contains any compelling argument against an Einsteinian metaphysical realism. An interpreter of these theories may have philosophical reasons against this epistemology, perhaps in the form form of doubts about the correspondence theory of truth, but on physical grounds alone he can stay with objectivity in the strong sense. On the other hand, the relativity theories distinguish sharply between relative properties, dependent on the reference frame, and absolute ones, independent of it."

DVdm (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Modocc

LCcritic wants us to "Allow quoted sources on relativity's idealism and philosophical criticism from realism." I am certain there is material on philosophical criticism from realism, much of it older, that we could include with proper references. Perhaps the article on Criticism of the theory of relativity suffers from wp:recentism in that there existed prominent and relevant criticisms from the turn-of-the-century that have the same veracity that they did when raised, although they have not been presented well by us, nor have these been sustained because of a lack of an alternative theory and the current systematic bias which merely verifies precision of measurements, without reinterpretation, i.e. a new paradigm. That said, the other editors in this dispute excluded quotes provided by LCcritic in part because they were from primary sources interpreted by LCcritic and not by published secondary sources. --Modocc (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Paradoctor, I am fairly sure LCcritic understands what coordinate changes are, for it means one is measuring within a different inertial frame of reference. For example, in two frames F and F', if rods are accelerated from being at rest from one frame to the other, then they are length contracting in one and expanding in length in the other due to deceleration, but we are rightly very skeptical of this consistent duplicity. Sometimes wp:truths are real, even if these are not adequately understood. --Modocc (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of the theory of relativity discussion

• Note: I'm very sorry that this has been here for a week without discussion. I am currently backed up on resolving disputes so please be patient for another mod to help you guys out. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That's ok, no need to hurry on my account. We're all volunteers with limited time. Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No hurry on my account either. It is a big issue in the community of relativity critics. It is not only about the protocol of "mainstream sources" as the only acceptable sources, which must be friendly to relativity. That is all I've heard so far. LCcritic (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

MODERATOR NEEDED please. ---- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (volunteer DRN coordinator)

Hi guys! I shall moderate this, as my previous case seems to be coming to a close. I will look through the materials over the next few days, then report back here. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Opening comments

This dispute seems to center on sources, or a lack of them, provided by User:LCcritic. Have you found anything at all that could help? I have done a brief search, which has turned up little or nothing of the like. WP:NOR is an important policy when looking at many types of articles, and I am afraid that no solution will be found to include this unless it has been mentioned in independent sources. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly stating "relativity's philosophical basis in idealism" is all I'm asking for. I couldn't find any, either. Paradoctor (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Already rejected by Paradoctor; Einstein to Eduard Study in a letter dated 9/25/'18: "I am not a realist." (I have quoted the full context repeatedly.) Also a quote from Kurt Godel's article, "On the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy" (rejected for insufficient footnoting on my part, and Paradoctor states as a fact his opinion that I have misinterpreted Godel.) Further, thought experiments ubiquitous among mainstream special relativity theorists use examples contrasting measurements taken from "Observer A's" relativistic frame of reference as contrasted with measurements taken from "Observer B's" frame of reference. This is clearly idealism, denying "objective reality," including the intrinsic dimensions of physical objects, and theorizing that their dimensions and the distances between them contract in length as differently observed (as above.) LCcritic (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Ps: SR must be disambiguated, because it does in fact claim that the length of objects does contract, as in the case of a 20 foot pole fitting into a 10 foot barn, the classic train thought experiment in which the train is contracted "for one observer" and longer "for another." Clearly the train does not change lengths. Also clearly, the distance between stars does not contract the faster a ship travels between them, as claimed by SR theory. This is a content issue. LCcritic (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring needed context for the Einstein quote: "I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist.". This qualification makes the quote useless for saying more than that Einstein considered himself not to be a realist. But even taking the cherry-picked version of the quote at face value, how does this imply that relativity is an idealist theory? Idealism and philosophical realism are not complementary philosophies, as far as I can tell, so we need a source saying what you want to include.

"This is clearly idealism" Not to me. That certain measurements depend on the choice of reference frame does not force idealism. If you disagree with this opinion, that's ok, but then you'll have to provide sources directly supporting this claim.

You didn't bother to quote Gödel, so I'll do it: "Following up the consequences [of relativity theory] [...] one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and the modern idealists, deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception.". A) This is a statement of the consequences, not of the basis of relativity. B) What is considered not real is change, not the world at large. This quote does not support the statement that relativity is rooted in idealism. Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What you took as most important from Godel's article was: "What is considered not real is change, not the world at large." So, "The Block Universe Theory." Time travel is scientifically possible through the "timescape" of relativity's "block universe." Famous relativity theorists endorse that. (Hawking is in favor of that.) Godel said clearly that relativity was based on idealism. Paradoctor disagrees, for his own reasons. LCcritic (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Right.... there seems to be a lot of partial quoting going on here. Is there a link to the full texts somewhere that I can have a look at please? --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have added my summary above. Sorry for being late with it. - DVdm (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Einstein quote seems to have been introduced by Howard, so his SEP entry appears right on spot.

The Gödel quote is discussed in the context of the philosophy of time. LCcritic found it on a philosophy student's blog. Parsons' paper may be helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would bring the focus back to my statements above, "Further... and theorizing that their (physical objects) dimensions and the distances between them contract in length as differently observed (as above.)" This is the most basic criticism of relativity, which is, as I have said, ubiquitous but not allowed because it is not mainstream. The idealism vs realism issue lies squarely in relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length as so measured from various frames. That would, for instance, allow the famous (thought experiment) 20 foot pole to fit inside a 10 foot barn. It would also allow Earth's diameter to contract as measured variously from relativistic frames, contracting in proportion to the velocity and in the direction of travel of various frames. The only "explanation" for such obviously impossible phenomena is that there is no real world, i.e., that "it all depends on how you look at it" (to use the common vernacular.) This is in fact idealism. Here is the full text of the Einstein quote [enclosed], clearly showing that he denies a real, objective world independent of observation:"[**“The physical world is real.”** That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does “hypothesis” mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity.** The above statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless,** as if one said: “The physical world is cock-a-doodle-doo.” It appears to me that the “real” is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole), whose monstrous importance lies only in the fact that I can do certain things in it and not certain others. This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead ... I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist.]" (My ** emphasis.)LCcritic (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Ps; I don't have the full text of the Godel article on relativity's idealism. If it can be found on the net I would appreciate a link. But basic prolific criticism of SR, as above, does not depend on Godel's philosophy. LCcritic (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this basic prolific criticism of SR, as above, just does not belong in Wikipedia. Are you serious about putting this in the article? - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That brings us right back to my summary of the dispute.

"relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length" There is no such claim. What relativity implies is that "length" is on the same footing as angular diameter is in classical physics. Both can be measured by mechanical means, yet different observers obtain different results, even when measuring simultaneously.

I think further discussion should wait for Mdann52's input. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding, "There is no such claim." From the Length Contraction article, opening statement: "In physics, length contraction is the *phenomenon of a decrease in length* (my *) measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." It does not say "an *apparent* decrease in length." If it did, the whole issue would be clarified, i.e, disambiguated. It says LC is a decrease in length of an object. The standard relativity examples of a decrease in a train's length and the shrinkage of a 20 foot pole to fit into a 10 foot barn are clear examples of the claim which Paradoctor denies. Examples abound on internet "ask the expert" websites. Such expert relativity physicists answer that the diameter of Earth "depends on who is looking at it,"... "depends on the frame of reference of from which it is measured," etc. "Earth's atmosphere IS contracted, for a muon," etc. Different observers "see" different "worlds," and relativity claims that there is no preferred frame of reference, that all are equally valid. LCcritic (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use "*" for emphasis, we use italics, see WP:SHOUT. You can surround text with '', or use the I button at the top of the edit box after highlighting what you wish to emphasize.

For someone claiming a to have PhD in philosophy, your abuse of quotes is awe-inspiring.

• I didn't say "apparent", contraction is a measurable phenomenon.
• length contraction says "decrease in length"
• You said "physically contract in length" (my emphasis), which is not what the article says. Also, the article has a section on the "reality" of contraction, which you ignore. Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"'relativity's claim that physical objects actually, physically contract in length' There is no such claim." It's my understanding that there is such a claim though. According to relativity, if I launch an elephant into space, the rocket contracts in our frame, but the rocket expands in the space station's frame and it does neither in its proper frame. These supposed length changes are on par with relativistic increases in a particle's available energy which changes the object's inertia (such as with Mercury's mass which advances its perihelion). -Modocc (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"there is such a claim" Great. Where?

As regards pachyderms, let me point out that our guiding principle is not truth. It is verifiability. Disagreement about truth is always a possibility, but arguing against verifiable facts is futile. Paradoctor (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Any primer on relativity will do, such as this [21], see the second problem Length Contraction ("Moving Rods Contract"). On one hand, the rocket (it's a fancier rod, kind of) and elephant that are at rest become contracted when these reach the space station due to their orbital velocity. But from the space station's perspective it is the rocket and elephant that are initially moving and contracted thus once docked, the rocket and elephant are no longer moving relative the station and they have have expanded! In addition, for those on board the rocket, although its not an inertial frame, it is a proper frame hence no length change is observed in that frame only. Thus different physical length observations are certainly claimed by relativity. -Modocc (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the file is not a reliable source, it still doesn't support the claim that there is a physical change, i. e. a change in the properties of the object measured, as opposed to the measurements. The text takes care to talk about measurements. It's not by accident that they use scare quotes around "moving rods contract"! Measurements generally depend not just on what is measured, but also on who is measuring. If "length" was a physical property of the object measured, then how could it be that different observers get different measurements, at the same time? This is entirely analogous to angular diameter as mentioned above. You need to find a reliable source stating pretty much literally that the object measured contracts, or that contraction is a physical process. If this was really in accord with relativity, it should be in widely used relativity textbooks, and peer-reviewed papers should explicitly say so.

Please note that I'm not talking about proper length, which is a physical property, and does not undergo contraction. Paradoctor (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of physics books that state what length contraction is and this source is written at the university level. Note that they state more explicitly that "Eq. (7) indicates that the length x of an object measured by observers at rest in S is smaller than the length x 0 measured by an observer at rest with respect to the meter stick." The elephant in the room is and always has been as you naively ask "how could it be that different observers get different measurements, at the same time?" Well they are being measured in different reference frames are they not... not that that redundancy enlightens most people for we are unappreciative skeptics immersed in our everyday Euclidean worldview after all under the ever more incomprehensible non-Euclidean relativity. Yet, this paradox is accepted as fact, thus it simply doesn't matter if you or I fail to accept it too. -Modocc (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The level is irrelevant, if it's not written by an established expert or peer-reviewed it is not a reliable source.

"more explicitly" Just confirms what I said, the quote says "length" [...] "measured by observers" and "length" [...] "measured by an observer" for the reason I stated: this measure depends on the observer.

"naively ask" It's more like a "naive" quotation. You overlooked the condition attached to the question: "If "length" was a physical property of the object measured". Since (intrinsic) physical properties are the same for all observers, and since the measured length varies with observer, the obvious conclusion is that length measurements of moving objects are not measuring a physical property. The angular diameter model shows the same behavior. You can use compass and goniometer to make the measurements, yet different observers get different measurements.

"the ever more incomprehensible non-Euclidean relativity" Excuse me for pointing this out, but foreign languages are only incomprehensible until you learn them. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've yet to read any physics book or reliable source that states "the obvious conclusion is that length measurements of moving objects are not measuring a physical property." It's late here, so I'll followup with perhaps more again tomorrow. Modocc (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC) To followup, you are right that contraction depends on who is measuring, but my understanding of the literature is that the measured lengths differ because observers are measuring different slices of spacetime, and each slice is real (thus intrinsic to matter and spacetime), according to the paradigm. --Modocc (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued in userland. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic, we cannot bend Wikipedia rules to accommodate synthesis, but articles are a work-in-progress, thus I am certain that a better article can and will be created. For instance, of the prominent critics of the past, we are allowed to write "According to X.." and quote or paraphrase them. It will likely take some extensive research at the university library though to get this right. -Modocc (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@LCcritic, at this time, I can not see how this quote can be introduced. The concept appears not to have been analyzed by professionals. Therefore, I propose that you drop this, with no prejudice against it being added in the future if more reliable material supporting it emerges. As pointed out above, WP:SPS is important, and it is generally hard to get an exception to it on articles such as this. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Come again? "Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism." That's from the SEP entry linked earlier. To be sure, quite a bit has been written about the philosophical underpinnings and consequences of relativity. It's just that there are no RSs supporting LCcritic's view. Too lazy to dig up sources right now, but my impression is that, generally, relativity is considered to be more of a realist bent. Paradoctor (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue of physical vs apparent contraction has been completely ignored as applied to improving the length contraction article, and that issue is central to criticism of relativity from realism... i.e., that physical objects do not actually shrink when measured to have contracted lengths as in SR theory. As I said above, if the word "apparent" were added to the opening statement there, the issue would be clarified/disambiguated. Then it would read, "... length contraction is the phenomenon of an apparent decrease in length..." There is no question (and I do not question) that relatively speaking, as I said, different observers see different 'worlds.' But also as said, "...relativity claims that there is no preferred frame of reference, that all are equally valid." Realism states (from Wiki's Philosophical realism section): “... the belief that reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.” From The Free dictionary: “b. The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.” From Wiki’s Realism article: "Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers.” So this part of relativity (SR) as presented in "Criticisms...", in "Length contraction," and in the "Relativity of simultaneity" articles is screaming for the clarification that observed differences in length do not reflect actual physical differences in length. (An Earth with a 4000 mile diameter as measured from a frame approaching at .866c does not mean that Earth's diameter has so contracted from its proper length, just under 8000 miles.) Please address the above before you dismiss the conflict as resolved. Thanks. LCcritic (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Ps; Paradoctor's continuing ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate, as per, "For someone claiming a to have PhD in philosophy, your abuse of quotes is awe-inspiring." I never claimed to have a PhD in philosophy. I taught a "special studies" course in the philosophy of science as a graduate student at the invitation of the university's Dean of philosophy, who liked my philosophical thesis. I am a retired psychologist. This dispute is not about my lack of expertise in punctuation (or indentation) as persistently criticized by Paradoctor. I have repeatedly admitted my incompetence regarding technical details including execution of various Wiki protocols. LCcritic (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"I never claimed to have a PhD in philosophy"

"I was a professor of the philosophy of science"

"My contribution to science as a professor of the philosophy of science (retired) has been to contrast Einstein's idealism (that reality depends on observation) with realism"

"repeatedly admitted my incompetence" WP:CIR notwithstanding, the expected response was "Thanks for the tip, I will do that.". Instead, you elected to justify your behavior. The problem is not lack of knowledge, it is your unwillingness or incapability to learn and adapt to this community.

As far as article content is concerned, I consider dispute resolution to have run its course in full, the result being that you failed to get support for your position every step along the way. If you continue, I'll raise the issue at WP:NORN, with a view to a topic ban. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I can only assume that you are Paradoctor, since you didn't sign. I hope that your opinion that "dispute resolution has run its course" is not the the final decision here. In reply to your inappropriate personal attacks: I was called an "assistant professor" under the counsel of my academic adviser (the full professor) and with the approval of the Dean. If you don't approve of the title, "professor,"... well that isn't the issue here, is it? It is not about "my position." It is about the criticism of relativity from the perspective of the philosophy of realism, as defined a few times above. Relativity allows no criticism. That should not dictate Wikipedia's policy of included sources. LCcritic (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

See my comment just entered on Modocc's talk page. Maybe a resolution is in sight for changes in Wiki's coverage of relativity. (Maybe that comment should have been entered here. It may be moved if appropriate.) LCcritic (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In the opening sentences of the lead of our article Proper length you can also see how Wikipedia already covers your criticism of relativity. Proper length is invariant. Didn't you know that? - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: Just so everyone knows, this discussion may be automatically closed by our archiving bot. Discussions here at DRN have a 2-week life span. After that, if a 24-hour period passes in which no edit is made to the discussion then it it is subject to being archived by the bot. The lead volunteer here, Mdann52, may avoid that by resetting the date in the "Do not archive until" invisible header at the top of the listing, but should do so only if substantial progress towards resolution is being made. If that's not the case, then the listing ought to be manually or automatically closed and referred on to some other form of content dispute resolution, or merely referred back to the article talk page for further discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator)

It is disconcerting to hear that this request for resolution will be ended by a robot at a given time allotted for "conflict resolution." I expected intelligent human consideration of the issue. Such automation does not make an encyclopedia. New information... or old that has been overlooked... should be considered in a volume of human knowledge. Science must resist automation... and 'dogma' in whatever scientific package. (Just a personal point of view, should it be "allowed" before this automatic censorship.) LCcritic (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mdann52, Paradoctor has issued me a final warning in the conversation at Modocc's talk page. Please tell me what authority he has to issue me a final warning before... my editorial privilege is revoked. Or is he way over his head in presumed authority here? LCcritic (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think my behavior is in conflict with community rules, you can report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not discuss behavior on this forum, so if the discussion begins to centre on that, you will need to go elsewhere. As far as I can see, I can't find any way to include this information in line with WP:SYN. Also, the robot will only archive it when it falls inactive for 24 hours; and in any case, I have added a week on in case this drags on. Unless any new reasoning comes to light in 24 hours, I will have to close this as unsucessful, as it appears to be centred around user conduct. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that I am not allowed to edit in changes that contrast observer/frame dependent measurement, different for each observer as per SR, with the the unchanging measurement of proper length of objects/distances from frames at rest with whatever is measured. The intent is to clarify that physical objects and distances do not shrink when measured from various relativistic frames, i.e., that they would only appear to shrink. I made this point above, and still hope for resolution of this content-based issue. From the length contraction article lead: "In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer." As I said, it does not say "an apparent decrease in length." If it did, the whole issue would be clarified, i.e, disambiguated. May I add "apparent" to that statement? If so, may I then edit the "Criticism..." article to reflect that difference?LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

SR theory insists that physical objects and distances do contract as so measured to contract. The "proper length" article stands in conflict with the length contraction article and the relativity of simultaneity article. A 20 foot pole will not in fact fit into a 10 foot barn under any circumstance, for instance. Nor would the distance between stars contract in proportion to the speed of an interstellar traveler, as SR insists. Finally realism should be allowed fair representation as a "criticism of the theory of relativity" in that article, i.e., that the intrinsic length of objects is not observer-dependent. LCcritic (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"May I add" No. You have just been informed by Mdann52 (for the second time!) that this is in conflict with our content policy. As did everyone else here. You have been informed which policy, and you have been informed what is required for such changes. It's over. Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed no. The fact that the "intrinsic length of objects is not observer-dependent" is not a criticism of the theory of relativity. It is an essential aspect of the theory. If you don't even know that, I really don't understand what you are doing here. - DVdm (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Without physics books' stating that contracted lengths are "apparent lengths" verbatim, no. -Modocc (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not asking the two of you involved in the dispute, as you have already denied my proposed edits and have made clear that you consider me an ignorant, crackpot relativity-denier. I thought I was in the right place to get a decision from an impartial volunteer who understands the content issue, i.e., that no criticism from realism is allowed in the "Criticisms" article. Observer-dependent measurements which vary with the observer are not based on realism, definitions of which I have quoted above. The essence of the relativity of simultaneity, for instance, which is basic to claims of length contraction, is that there is no "objective, real world" with events happening independent of when they are observed from different frames. So one frame sees a shorter rod while another sees a longer rod, and SR claims that both are equally valid, i.e., that there is no objective, "real," physical, rigid, unchanging rod. Neither of you seem to understand the issue, as "died in the wool" relativity defenders. Btw, I am really tired of your continuing personal insults. I thought they were not allowed here in dispute resolution on the content of edits. I again ask Mdann52 to address the issue of allowing criticism from realism, as above. LCcritic (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

LCcritic, as I already said before, note that you don't have a criticism to add to the article. What you have in mind is not a criticism but an integral aspect of relativity. The relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", not even close. Furthermore, the "essence of the relativity of simultaneity" is not that "there is no "objective, real world" with events happening independent of when they are observed from different frames." Yes indeed "one frame sees a shorter rod while another sees a longer rod, and SR claims that both are equally valid", but SR dot not "claim that there is no objective, "real," physical, rigid, unchanging rod."

You see, and please don't take this as an insult, in this last comment you just demonstrated your ignorance of the basics of special relativity, but nobody ever called you a "crackpot relativity-denier." Please try to assume good faith from fellow editors (see wp:AGF), like we assume good faith (buth alas, ignorance on matters of special relativity) from your part. As I told you before, I really honestly think that you have come to the wrong place with your views. - DVdm (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: I was not asking the two of you involved in the dispute... This is not personal, as you insist... "you just demonstrated your ignorance..."... again presenting your opinion as a fact. Study the old standard train length example as a case of "who sees what, when, from what frame" determining the length of the train... and the changing length of the pole/ladder as it shrinks to half its "proper length" so as to fit into the barn. Realism is in fact a philosophy of legitimate criticism of SR, the latter being an observer dependent theory of changing lengths of objects... and the distances between. Your lack of familiarity with the philosophy of science in which realism is a legitimate criticism of SR's observer dependency does not make your statement factual when you say "... you don't have a criticism to add to the article..." I beg for a reply to the content of my criticism from Mdann52. LCcritic (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I repeat from above: it is commonly agreed that relativity is very much a realist theory. For example (with emphasis added):^[1]

"It is commonly agreed that neither special relativity theory nor general relativity theory contains any compelling argument against an Einsteinian metaphysical realism. An interpreter of these theories may have philosophical reasons against this epistemology, perhaps in the form form of doubts about the correspondence theory of truth, but on physical grounds alone he can stay with objectivity in the strong sense. On the other hand, the relativity theories distinguish sharply between relative properties, dependent on the reference frame, and absolute ones, independent of it."

In short, indeed you don't have a criticism to add to the article: realism is in fact part and parcel of SR. - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of civil conversation, please explain your understanding of the phrase, "metaphysical realism." Since "meta-" is the prefix for "beyond," how does metaphysics, beyond the physical, properly describe the physical world, as it exists independent of theories about it? That is a philosophical question. Irrelevant in the world of physics, these days, it seems. But an encyclopedia should represent human knowledge fairly. What is "mainstream relativity?" That physics which does not tolerate criticism, endorsing shrinking objects and such? I wax philosophical. But I am very serious in this question before the dispute resolution desk. Please answer before I go "away" for a week starting 1/30/'14... and just let the robot archive the request, unresolved. LCcritic (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a little (minimal) research for you regarding your claim, "The relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", not even close. " From Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_length_contraction See “The pole-barn paradox” section...“Length contraction as a result of the relativity of simultaneity” (diagram and explanation.) Please do not continue to present your misunderstanding of length contraction and its relationship to the relativity of simultaneity as 'The Truth About SR.' (No, not a quote; a characterization of your ongoing presumption as the all knowing expert on relativity.) I will now wait for a reply from the moderator. You, Paradoctor, are the one making this personal by continuing to insult my intelligence and by continuing your pretense to superior knowledge. 71.34.249.157 (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"your claim" ... "your misunderstanding" ... "your ongoing presumption" ... "You, Paradoctor" Once again, you demonstrate failure to parse what you read. Your self-admitted "incompetence regarding technical details" clearly extends beyond the "mere" technical into the "crucial".

"insult my intelligence" ...

Paradoctor (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@71.34.249.157 aka LCcritic:: See Special relativity#Length contraction to find out how relativity of simultaneity is not "basic to claims of length contraction", and indeed not even close. You can bring the two concepts together in some setup of your choice, but one is not basic to the claims of the other. The fact that you can eat meat and vegetables does not imply that meat is basic to vegetables. See how little you know about the subject? - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2014 (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

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

Users involved

• AshutoshRoyBijni (talk · contribs)
• Simanta5000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Just to update you that photos uploaded by User:Simanta5000 listed below is not his own work, all the photos have different owners. He violated the copywrite of our community page

File:View of Chilarai flyover bongaigaon.jpg File:Mayapuri Cinema, Bongaigaon City.jpg File:Bongaigaon Metropolis, Assam, India – 783380.jpg File:NewBongaigaonRailwayJn.jpg

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested to use original work . No editing and deletion of owner stamp from the photos

How do you think we can help?

These pictures are private picture, so please remove

Summary of dispute by

Bongaigaon 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

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

Users involved

• Sathishmls (talk · contribs)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs) aka Doc James
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• Ian_Furst (talk · contribs)
• Axl (talk · contribs)
• LeadSongDog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya [22] happening in India tried using Indian Traditional Medicine by Government Hospitals and Central Council Research Institutions. I am not advising anything here. I am using the source as the document [23] prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Government of India. To make the content neutral, i have started with "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, ..." which was also taken from the source. Page 60 of [24] source provides the observations and benefits of the used traditional medicines. For many days, User Jmh649 said the above source is not reliable and removed the content continuously. Since another user WhatamIdoing also supported the content, User Jmh649 stopped removing the content. [25] But now User Jmh649 is trying to place the content with certain removal to a negligible and unrelated section called Society and culture in the article page instead of placing in the Treatment section and refusing consistently. I feel there is discrimination shown by allopathic people against Indian Traditional Medical System and intentionally trying to hide facts about them from Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain about the source details. But still User Jmh649 is not convinced.

How do you think we can help?

I have used 2 lines which are directly taken from the source. User Jmh649 stopped removing the content since another supporter user WhatamIdoing supported this. I believe people here will provide an unbiased and neutral view on this so that User Jmh649 will accept to put the content in Treatment section.

Summary of dispute by Jmh649

The source this user is trying to use is not very good. This is more or less the consensus on the talk page. While one might be able to use it to say traditional medicine is used (which is a social and culture issue). The source does not support any benefit from said traditional medicine. We would need better sources for that and in fact the better sources say there is no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We need better refs. Yes all sorts of treatments are used. We do not just list all the things people can do that have been reported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

Although a reference work trying to tell doctors what they ought to prescribe might omit such things, I believe that encyclopedia articles are incomplete if they do not describe all of the treatments that are commonly used, including treatments that are ineffective, silly, or harmful, regardless of their status as "conventional" or "alternative". Ineffective treatments are still "treatments", not "social issues", and should therefore be described in the ==Treatment== section.

It may be worth noticing that the section heading is an all-inclusive word, Treatment, rather than a restrictive phrase like Effective treatment or Treatments supported by evidence. The relevant guideline says this section should "include any type of currently used treatment, such as diet, exercise, medication, palliative care, physical therapy, psychotherapy, self care, surgery, watchful waiting, and many other possibilities". In India, Ayurvedic care definitely comes under the heading of "any type of currently used treatment".

That said, the description in this case should not claim that these Ayurvedic treatments are effective. The original opening phrase in the disputed paragraph, which says that no satisfactory treatment exists, should be retained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ian_Furst

The author is making the claim that a botanical remedy, apparently common to India, is a potential treatment for Chikungunya based on a single source document published by the government of India. The source document has several major flaws that in my opinion preclude it from being a secondary source, a hard standard on medical articles especially with respect to treatment. The fact that it's published by the government should have no bearing on the situation.

1. it uses the article itself in Wikipedia as core reference on the disease,
2. the document is a series of descriptions on the use of botanical therapies by several practitioners, that would not pass basic publishing criteria as a primary source on treatment (e.g. they haven't followed commonly accepted practices on study design for treatments), and fail to follow basic principals of the scientific method
3. I could not find any mention of informed consent on the part of the patients in the data reported (and as best I can determine the the data has not been published elsewhere in greater detail) so it's possible the people in the treatment experiments were given alternate potential remedies without their knowledge that someone was experimenting

In short, the document would fall far short of any standard for publication, even as a primary source in a reputable scientific journal. But because it's published by the government, the author is making the claim it is a secondary and reliable source. As a source that most of the population uses the botanical treatment, they simply state, "About 65% of population in India is reported to use Ayurveda and medicinal plants to help meet their primary health care needs and the safety of this vibrant tradition is attributed to time tested use and textual reference." (emphasis added), but it's generalized to all botanical treatments, unreferenced and unrelated to Chikungunya specifically. The "textual reference" is in reference to ancient texts dating back thousands of years. I don't believe the document passes basic principals as a reliable source for Wikipedia and should not be included. Ian Furst (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Amendment; with respect to the argument that all treatments should be included, effective or not, I don't dispute properly investigated remedies deserve a place. In fact, there's a strong argument to be made for discussing the negative findings which often get suppressed. However, there's a difference between a well investigated "alternative" treatment (like acupuncture for pain) with secondary sources and this, which is essentially untested by the scientific method. To include any claimed cure, researched or not is to dismiss WP:NPOV. How can I discuss it, if I can't read NPOV research on it?Ian Furst (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Axl

The source that Satishmls describes is published by the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha. This in itself makes me question the impartiality of the authors. The document has a list of authors/editors who are "doctors". Whether they are really medical doctors is questionable, but I am prepared to assume good faith on this matter. The document makes a number of claims about ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya, but on closer inspection, these claims are based only on case series data. This is a low quality of evidence.

I have searched for other evidence on PubMed to investigate chikungunya and ayurvedic/siddha treatments. However I could not find any PubMed-indexed articles about this.

Regarding Doc James' claim that the document is a primary source, I believe that this is unclear. At least some of it is primary, but it is plausible that some of its content might be secondary. However, in this case I believe that the distinction between primary and secondary is less relevant than the low quality of evidence adduced.

LeadSongDog's claim of an argument from authority is not relevant here. The "argument from authority" is a philosophical stance used when considering "the truth". With medical articles, we are not trying to establish "the truth" but rather what is reported in reliable sources.

In summary: I believe that the document could be used as a reliable source to indicate that ayurvedic/siddha treatment is used in India to treat chikungunya. However this must be tempered with an indication that evidence is weak—although we can't actually write that because it is WP:OR—we can say that only case series data is provided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LeadSongDog

DocJames is too kind, this is a terrible source. That several officials with doctorates have their names attached does nothing to change that fact. There is no evidence that it reflects "a reputation for fact checking", nor authorial impartiallity, nor scientific rigour. It advocates the use of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic substances as drugs without any kind of accompanying discussion of their toxicity! Wikipedia should not do anything that might lend credibility to such sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinators note

Hi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

Chikungunya discussion

There is another PubMed article [26] which describes the usage and properties of Nilavembu Kudineer in treatment of Chikungunya fever. Sathishmls (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an article, a clinical study published in Indian Journal of Traditional Medicine on 'Siddha way to cure Chikungunya' - link [27] (Specified as Andrographis paniculata [Nilavembu]) Sathishmls (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place to respond, if not please excuse the lack of decorum - I can move the comment elsewhere. The 1st reference is to a study in mice with fever generated by brewer's yeast. It has nothing to do with Chikungunya or humans. The 2nd article reports the treatment of 500 people with bontanicals during an outbreak and the author claims a "cure" in 450/500 without evidence that the botanical had any impact, good or bad. The study fails to give almost any details of how people were assessed or treated (other than the botanical) and is lacking many other details standard to publications on the effect of treatments, except to claim that the fever was reduced in 8/10. Both are primary research. Ian Furst (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You all people are asking sources to claim that these ayurvedic and siddha treatments for chikungunya are 100% effective which even i am not claiming. I believe that the information of these treatments which are promoted by Indian Government itself at present, is definitely valuable to be included in the treatment section of the Chikungunya article. Sathishmls (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst, the point isn't to say that it works. The point is to accurately describe the fact that people do actually use this. There are enough sources available to support a claim that this is done. For example, PMID 17433130 says that 40% of patients with chikungunya (in a different country) used herbal medicines. Using herbal medicines is very common, largely due to the cultures that the disease happens to be prevalent in. We should not exclude the fact that people are actually using herbal medicines.

NB that the disputed statement says, "Though there is no satisfactory treatment regimen available, in India, Ayurveda and Siddha medicine like Linga Chenduram, Nilavembu Kudineer are used"—not "they work", but "people really do swallow them". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The original point being pressed, was not to say that people in India use herbal remedies, rather, that a herbal remedy might be a treatment for Chikungunya. From the statement of dispute, "I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya ..." The paper you referenced (PMID 17433130) found 16 different herbals used by 40% of the survey group (none of which was Ayurveda - but one was cannabis) on an island in the Indian ocean. It's a good primary study, but the same could be said for many home remedies of influenza and almost any other ailment. I would wager that people use similar herbal remedies for a wide range of ailments on Réunion. Unless it is something specific to the disease (not to say that it works/doesn't work/whatever, just a secondary source that at a minimum says people specifically use it for Chikungunya), I don't think it should be included on this page. Better it be on a page about medical practices in India, otherwise, people will believe it's a potential treatment, just as the original author desired. Isn't the secondary source rule intended to protect articles from speculation just like this? Ian Furst (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The report [28] is specifically towards Chikungunya, is reviewed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (The Apex body in India for the Formulation, Coordination and Promotion of Biomedical Research), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (The Authority for setting of standards for drugs, pharmaceuticals and healthcare devices and technologies in India) and National Institute of Virology (Designated as WHO H5 reference Laboratory for SE Asia region). I am adding what is given in the reliable source and it does not claim to be 100% efficient either. Sathishmls (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the report is specifically toward Chikungunya. But it is a primary publication of data, the limitations of which, we've discussed at length above both technically and as a wikipedia "reliable source". As to the influence of the three governmental bodies mentioned above on the report, I notice that all other participants are listed as either contributors or editors (and all are from organization for either siddha or ayurvedic) and their findings are detailed either throughout the report or in Annexure-7, the summary of your workshop. Whereas the 3 doctors from the governmental bodies you mention, Drs. Mishra, Mishra and Lalitkanth, are a "review board" and they appear nowhere in the report except the title page. Their inclusion on the title page doesn't change my opinion that the report is still just bad primary research. Ian Furst (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I or Wikipedia don't need to worry about personal opinions or personal grievances of anyone because of the only reason that it not allopathic. People should be broad-minded and give respect to other medical systems rather than narrow minded towards their medical system. There is a reviewed and published (both by the highest authority in India) report which no one can deny. There are enough sources to prove about these happenings in India. I have made the content unbiased. The content can be published under ==Treatment== section as per Wikipedia guidelines. I have nothing else to say here. Sathishmls (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (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

• Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• Greyshark09 (talk · contribs)
• Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, I am coming here for advice on how to resolve a roadblock between me and another editor with whom I have previously worked with cordially and successfully on other articles. I have been unable to make progress on the article for almost two months, as the other editor insists on reverting back to an earlier version without commenting on my carefully considered individual edits. I have stopped editing the page for days or weeks at a time in order to allow adequate time for explanations of the continued bulk reversions, but sadly this does not appear to have had the desired effect. What baffles me is that the article edits themselves are not particularly sensitive - the only really sensitive area has been permanently left on the talk page ([29]) until this roadblock is resolved. All I want to do is improve the article, taking into account the thoughts of all other editors. I feel the above has in effect placed a brick wall in front of me, without any explanation. I have tried and tried to assume good faith, so I put it down to laziness on the part of Greyshark, particularly as the edits themselves are really not particularly contentious.

In the box below is the timeline of the interactions / roadblocking so far from my perspective:

Extended content

* 5+8 Dec - Oncenawhile makes 15 edits to the article, Greyshark makes 4 edits and Oncenawhile makes a further 3 edits. All very cordial, and the only point of difference was discussed at talk [30]. Although Greyshark stopped responding on the talk thread, and despite WP:ONUS, his edits were left in the article pending further discussion to avoid antagonizing the situation. 8 Dec - Greyshark notes that s/he wants to discuss amendments to the structure [31]. Oncenawhile, stops editing and answers on talk explaining the proposed further amendments intended [32] and asks for comment 26 Dec - After 2.5 weeks with no discussion from Greyshark, Oncenawhile makes 13 edits to partially implement what he proposed on talk 29 Dec - Greyshark makes one large revert, reverting almost all of the 13 edits made by Oncenawhile on 26 Dec as well as most of those made on 8 Dec. On the talk page Greyshark explains he had expected a self-revert by Oncenawhile following Greyshark's comment on 8 Dec. Greyshark reiterates s/he does not like the proposed new structure, but does not comment on the other changes s/he reverted. Oncenawhile stops editing again, and responds with a detailed comment having parsed through Greyshark's mass reversion edit [33] 6 Jan - After no response from Greyshark in over a week, Oncenawhile reverts the revert with the edit comment "Temporary revert pending response on talk (I presume Greyshark is on a short wikibreak))" 7 Jan - Greyshark reverts the revert, with a constructive response. Oncenawhile responds to the response in detail [34] 8 Jan - Oncenawhile makes two edits - one as agreed with Greyshark and the other an unrelated edit improvement, not touching anything Greyshark disputed 10 Jan - After 3 days with no talk response, Oncenawhile reverts the disputed part of Greyshark's response with the talk page comment: "Hi Greyshark, I have again reverted your reverts after waiting a few days. Happy for you to revert back on your return. It's just it impedes progress otherwise given the long delays" 10 Jan - Plotspoiler, a previously uninvolved editor only a few weeks back from an ARBPIA ban for "tendentious editing" [35], reverted Oncenawhile's revert without meaningful explanation. Oncenawhile asks Plotspoiler to review the talk discussion and consider self-reverting, with no response [36] 12 Jan - Brief exchange between Greyshark and Oncewhile, but with limited progress. [37] Oncenawhile partially reverts Plotspoiler's revert with the edit comment "There is a detailed talk discussion ongoing. i have reverted PS but also reverted my own last edit, since Greyshark has now replied. PS, we'd love to have you involved - please join us on talk". In other words, only the 8 Jan uncontroversial edits were reinstated, not the 10 Jan edit, pending further discussion. 14-19 Jan - Onceawhile makes a further 10 edits, as well as related talk page comments. Most are new edits, those covering old ground were intended to take into account Greyshark's concerns raised in earlier comments. 19 Jan - Greyshark reverts back to his 7 Jan version, in effect reverting right back to the beginning. The edit comment is "pls wait for feedback before continuing massive edits". No talk page comment is made. Oncenawhile reverts the revert. Plotspoiler reverts Oncenawhile. Onceawhile stops editing and leaves a comment on Greyshark's user talk. [38] 22 Jan - Greyshark makes four small edits. Oncenawhile reverts two (one by one) with detailed edit comments on each. Greyshark does not comment on any of the outstanding reverts which s/he has been asked numerous times to explain. 24 Jan - Oncenawhile reverts the 19 Jan reverts with the edit comment "Adding back edits made between 7 Jan - 19 Jan, removed by Greyshark without comment or explanation. It has been 5 days since Plotspoiler and Greyshark reverted again, without still no comment." 26 Jan - Greyshark reverts again, including reverting Oncenawhile's targetted reverts of Greyshark's small edits on 22 Jan, with the edit comment "mind the majority and wait for answers on talk page with specific suggestions rather than 3-4 pages of monologues (including my talk page)". Greyshark makes talk page comments which are not related in any way to the content in the reversion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking on the article talk page, and on the users' talk pages

How do you think we can help?

Any ideas to break the roadblock would be greatly appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09

Summary of dispute by Plot Spoiler

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries 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

• Devyani Khobragade incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prodigyhk (talk · contribs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Bluerasberry posted the complete court records in the article. Had removed these documents and provided my reasons for removal in the Talk page. But the other user is not convinced and reinserted the problem images.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have discussed on Talk page. But, other editor not convinced and reverted the edits.

How do you think we can help?

Advice if WP policy allow editor to post or link original court documents within WP articles

Summary of dispute by Bluerasberry

The article is about an arrest and indictment. I posted the indictment (a court document and primary source) and a letter (another primary source) which was part of a related press release to Commons and then posted them in the article as illustrative media. The inclusion of these two files into the article is the subject of the dispute - see the diff.

Just like other media in Commons such as photos, non-text media which are primary sources can be used to supplement articles so long as they are not cited as sources of data. The article does not cite these documents.

I know that WP:PRIMARY says not to do original research or derive information from court documents. No one should! However, since this article is about an arrest and an indictment, and especially since the indictment is mentioned repeatedly in many secondary sources, it is helpful to have it included in the article. The relevance of these documents is not disputed. The issue is whether court documents are allowed to be shared through Wikipedia. I assert that they can, so long as they are not used to source text to the article.

Devyani Khobragade incident

• Yes, court documents may not be used as (primary) sources. Looking at the diff provided they are not cited as sources. @Prodigyhk: Please state why these violate any policy and please do not quote mine. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • MrScorch I'd like to add my 2 cents if I may, to this case that you are moderating. A few points for everyone here to consider.
    • WP:PRIMARY allows the use of primary sources as long as they are not the foundation of an article and as long as they are used to state straightforward facts about the article topic. WP:PRIMARY says that court documents are primary sources but it does not disallow their usage and court documents are being used as citations in some WP articles. However since this article is about an event in the life of a living person we need to consult WP:BLP which says: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Photo's are appropriate when they illustrate content in an article. And in this case they seem appropriate to me. The only requirement is that the caption should not be used in an attempt to "support assertions" about the living person that are not already supported by secondary sources. In this case, the image has relevance to the article as an illustration and a simple caption such as "9 January 2014 letter notifying the court of Devyani Khobragade's Indictment" seems useful and within WP's guidelines and policies.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200, as user:Keithbob explained - violates policy WP:BLP. Also, unlike judgements, the indictment is a document that is not neutral. It just confirm accusation put forward by the prosecution team(in this case Bharara) meets certain condition to proceed for prosecution. So, by posting this primary document, we will also violate WP:NPOV policy in addition to WP:BLP. Prodigyhk (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I said it does not violate WP:BLP and I explained why. Further, I don't see how an image of a document violates WP:NPOV. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) Keithbob did not say it violates the BLP policy. He didn't even use the word 'violate' in his statement. He said, and quote: "In this case, the image has relevance to the article as an illustration and a simple caption such as ..[blah blah].. seems useful and within WP's guidelines and policies". It seems you are quote mining again. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Keithbob Intention was to direct MrScorch6200 to your reference on the specific sentence from the WP:BLP. Have now corrected my earlier sentence to reflect this. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Sorry if I overreacted :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. It seems at this point, these are the standing assertions:

• To clarify, I posted actual documents and not images. I am posting them here.
• Documents of this sort should not be used to "support assertions". I think we are all in agreement that the documents are not supporting anything, and that the proposal is just to post them on the side.
• Prodigyhk says, "unlike judgements, the indictment is a document that is not neutral." Keithbob requested clarification of this.
• Prodigyhk said, the documents "just confirm accusation put forward by the prosecution team(in this case Bharara) meets certain condition to proceed for prosecution", and I agree with this.
• Prodigyhk says that posting these documents would "violate WP:NPOV policy in addition to WP:BLP"

Prodigyhk, why would you say that the indictment itself is not neutral? This document was produced by a grand jury and I have trouble imagining what could be NPOV about this document. Do you feel that this document is insulting or giving misleading information about Khobragade? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BluerasberryThanks for agreeing that the posting is actual documents and not images Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry & Keithbob Since only "some" and not "all" indictments result in judgements favoring the prosecution, my stand that indictments can/may/will give misleading information about the prosecuted. Hence WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Moving away from the emotions of this specific case, my opinion is that we do not allow such court documents be posted in complete form anywhere within WP. The only exception may be in some historical case where the document itself may be of some great importance, which this case is not. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Prodigyhk and Bluerasberry, thanks for your willingness to continue to discuss and collaborate. Now that it is clear that we are discussing the insertion of a document and not an image I am not so supportive. An image is a representation of a place or object that illustrates text from the article. In that respect I felt the image of a document was suitable for the article. Now that its being presented as a document (I assume for the purpose of reading) then I have to reconsider. It seems like a most unsual way to incorporate a document into an article and I'm not sure what the precedent or policy is that applies to this situation. It is very late now where I live so I am going to sleep. Maybe our moderator User:MrScorch6200 will be back on this thread after the end of this holiday weekend (tomorrow) and I look forward to his insights and suggestions. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say. To me, the indictment document seems fundamental to a discussion of the case and that the Wikipedia article would be worse if it did not make it available in an appropriate manner. I thought that I was asking if the document could feature prominently to complement the article, but perhaps I should ask how the document should feature, or if the document should feature at all.

1. Does anyone here think that these files should not be on Wikimedia Commons?
2. Does anyone here think that the article on the Devyani Khobragade incident should not link to these documents at all?
3. If the article does link to the documents, then how should that happen? One option is to put a Commons box as shown here in the external links section, but I do not prefer this and see no reason to hide the documents.

Despite what Prodigyhk says, I know of no rule prohibiting the posting of court documents to Wikipedia. I have never seen court documents posted to Wikipedia, but I assumed that this was because they were usually not easily available or not well discussed in secondary sources, and not because they were prohibited.

I still do not understand the NPOV and BLP arguments. The entirety of the Wikipedia article and all sources cited are a commentary on the information in these source documents. Again, there is a policy at Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• There isn't anything in the BLP and NPOV guidelines prohibiting court documents from being used; to resolve disputes here we usually enforce what the guidelines and policies say instead of giving an opinion. Regarding this, the questionability of inserting the document and your questions above, an WP:RfC seems better in this case for a broader community consensus. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that an RfC is necessary yet and I wish that there could be some compromise. Prodigyhk, can you think of any compromise? Could you answer my questions 1, 2, 3 above, please? I am not clear if you want the documents removed entirely or if you just do not like how I posted them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry to answer your questions, refer WP:NOTREPOSITORY

* "Photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."

* " Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."

--> Since this is a document and not an image. Cannot include in the article, nor in Wikimedia Commons.

on your request for compromise, my suggestion - in the section "External Links", include a link direct to the specific page on portal for 'US District Court - NY South District http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/ that relates to this case. By linking to the court portal, we ensure any future changes in this case is available. Prodigyhk (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Prodigyhk At this time I cannot accept the compromise offer to only host an external link to the court website as I do not feel that would be sufficient to share this information. Thank you for proposing a compromise, but I would like to share this information if it is compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines to share it.

I fail to recognize a response to my questions in WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I hope that you recognize that there is text in the Khobragade article which goes with the indictment document, so I am not adding "media files with no text to go with the articles", and I do have the files hosted on Wikimedia Commons and one of them is on Wikisource too. Even though they are on Commons and elsewhere, I would like to mirror copies on Wikipedia without actually hosting them here or copying text from there here. Do you see a difference? Do you still feel that NOTREPOSITORY applies? To what extent do you understand my argument? Thanks for continuing to talk with me about this. If you like, I could ask the moderator or anyone else to help to interpret that policy also. If you are serious about wanting the files deleted from Commons I could help you start a deletion discussion there also, if you wish. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Blue per my understanding of various policies(as cited), can not post these complete documents within the article space. This is the reason I suggest a compromise. If you wish, do get another moderator, since our existing moderator it seems has given up on us :) Prodigyhk (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

MrScorch6200 and Keithbob, I feel that Prodigyhk and I are having a good exchange but we are having a bit of trouble understanding each other. Do either of you have any advice on how we can isolate the nature of the dispute, consider it in light of all the policies we have named and any others that might be relevant, and then find some resolution? I am not ready to say that anyone has given up and I am happy with the pace and progress of this so far. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTREPOSITORY says it pretty blatantly, "[cannot be included...] Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." If either of you believe this policy applies, then the document may not be included. This is why I suggested an RfC. Also, with Keithbob's indefinite absence, I will heed this dispute. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: It is unlikely that Keithbob will be participating in this discussion further, as he is taking an extended wikibreak. MrScorch6200 is now the lead volunteer handling this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (acting DRN coordinator)

Preparation for RfC

Prodigyhk, I do not see any Wikipedia policy which I feel prohibits including this content. At the same time, I have never seen this kind of content included elsewhere, nor have I been able to find any prior discussion on this issue. I would like to start an Rfc. Below is a draft of what I would post on the Khobragade talk page. Could you please look this over and make changes as you like? After you approve, we can move it to the Khobragade article and start the request for content. Also, sometimes it is nice to be ready for an RfC, so I thought that I would ask - How is your schedule these next few days? Is it okay with your schedule to start an RfC soon? How do you feel about my starting an RfC? Does that seem reasonable to you? Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to change text in this box, or just comment below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry will review and get back in a day. Suggest we submit it on Friday morning. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry have made some changes to keep focus on the dispute which is the inclusion of court documents in an Wikipedia article. Please review. Let me know your thoughts.

Prodigyhk It looks great. I just added the other options also, either for the box at the right or just an external link. No hurry with this. Let's wait till Friday, or if for some reason you want to wait a bit longer, that is fine too. If you do not say otherwise, I will post this Friday 31 December as an RfC on the Khobragade article, with notices on WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOTREPOSITORY talk pages. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2014 (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

• Trabzonspor , 1461 Trabzon

Users involved

• Rivaner (talk · contribs)
• NeoRetro (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like some of your time and take a look at these articles Revision History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1461_Trabzon In this article if you just look at the version before mine, you will see that it is written in a very offensive language and really bad english. ( I know mine is not perfect also but there must be some kind of stability ;) ) It stayed there for a really long time then I edited the article. Now, please take look at this page; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trabzonspor&offset=20131124214707&action=history As you can see, the version before mine was really offensive and I changed it and wrote the reason for it but only after 5 days it was changed and even on the edit page, the user is offensive. I tried to contact the user about this issue but got no reply. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeoRetro) Today, I decided to write you because I am really frusturated about this issue and I can't surf on one of my favorite internet pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to contract the user via "talk page" got no reply.

How do you think we can help?

By getting involved and making a final decision about the articles, If I am wrong about the articles that I have stated above I would like to know the reason, not just "Ughhhh, trying to mess up the page" and if am right, I would also like to know the reason of the users aggresive writings. Thanks for your time.

Summary of dispute by NeoRetro

Trabzonspor and 1461 Trabzon Articles 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.