→Discussion: tweak |
Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 564: | Line 564: | ||
:::Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation|privilege that comes with formal mediation]], hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation|privilege that comes with formal mediation]], hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. <font face="Forte">[[User:Steven Zhang|<font color="black">Steven Zhang</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Steven Zhang|<font color="#FFCC00">The clock is ticking....</font>]]</sup></font> 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an ''Etymology'' and/or ''Definition'' section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
::::I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an ''Etymology'' and/or ''Definition'' section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::I think something simple in the lead like, "artificial termination of a pregnancy" followed by a major section ==Definition of abortion== outlining all the issues you raise would be the best solution. I wouldn't worry that the short lead introduction does not comprehensively address all issues. I think it is a good general rule to not attempt to resolve issues in the lead, as then there must be winners and losers, and, of course, the biggest loser is the reader who needs to be informed about the issues not told the "correct" answer. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Resolution=== |
===Resolution=== |
Revision as of 13:49, 29 June 2011
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Robert (doll) | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 2 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours |
Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 1 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours |
Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours |
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 15 hours |
Aidi | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 1 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 19 hours | Traumnovelle (t) | 15 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Example case
|
---|
Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)(Example post)
DiscussionResolutionThe dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... |
America Invents Act
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- The nature of this dispute relates primarily to these edits [1], [2], [3] on America Invents Act. I initially removed the content under the rationale that there was a COI, as some of the citations used actually linked to a company's product and services page and relied on information from a company's presentation (now deadlink) [4] . I believe that such links are in violation of WP:REFSPAM and WP:RS. The second point of debate is the insertion of lengthy quotes. While the information may be relevant, it is not productive to insert lengthy quotations [5], [6]. There are over 15 quotes, each taking an entire paragraph. This is not constructive and is in violation of WP:QUOTEFARM. This edit however, could be salvaged. User:ChagSameach rejects the notion of COI and believes that such quotes are necessary and cannot be summarized. -Cntras (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
- Discussion on User talk:Cntras.
- What can we do to help resolve this issue?
- Mediate an appropriate compromise.
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- I received a similar notice on my talk page, and I offered to help with sourcing. The article is one of several repetitive Patent Reform Act articles being abused/edited by skilled SPAs and IPs and need significant attention from a number of experienced Wikipedia editors. Flowanda | Talk 09:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This case is somewhat complicated and both editors are either acting in good faith or are skilled at debating. I'm looking into the SPA issue, meanwhile, here are some basic principles:
- Conflict of Interest: COIs are not by themselves a problem. COI editing which leads to bias or promotion is a problem. COI allegations are rarely helpful. Most COI editors are not ill-intentioned, and many don't understand the policy and instead think they are just contributing in their area of expertise. Tendencies of general editors don't justify conclusions in particular cases. Assume good faith.
- External links: External links should be for reference and should be a unique resource for readers. We don't usually link to commercial websites without good reason.
- Civility: No personal attacks. Focus on content, and focus specifically on this article. New editors should be welcomed and guided not bitten. New editors should also be patient and not accuse others of violating policies they may not understand fully. Respect is useful, civility is required. Jargon and policy citation are not friendly for new editors and can be unintentionally BITEY. Prefer simple language and talk page explanations where possible. Also, a reminder that this is a collaborative community and not a courtroom. Focus on improving not accusing. Personal sparring matches are a waste of time. Note that anti-vandalism work is a vital part of Wikipedia's moderation; that doesn't mean either editor involved here is involved in vandal or anti-vandal work; editors work in diverse areas and vandalism only applies to intentionally disruptive behavior.
- WP:QUOTEFARM: Extended quotes are rarely appropriate for an encyclopedia. They should be paraphrased, summarized, and cast in the light in which other sources see them. Quotes are more appropriate for amendments and speeches, where the actual text is famous. This is not true for mere legislation or commentary. Wikipedia is not a legal journal, and the exact text of statutes is not needed beyond brief in-line exceprts. Quotes and commentary can always be paraphrased, and the summary should come from secondary sources which recognize the significance of the text. There's also some confusion about adding sources vs. adding hiqh-quality, published, independent, authoritative, reliable sources. We want sources that are third-party, fact-checked or peer-reviewed, and from a source with a clear reputation in the field. There is not parity of sources between contemporary commentary and original (or historical) documents. The purpose of encyclopedias is to summarize for a general audience, not primarily a specialist audience. Articles should be structured to be primarily accessible to the most people. Ocaasi t | c 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Cntras's recent history of Wikipedia edits (User Contributions page) reveals that Cntras objects to and undoes much of the work of others. During the one month period between 23 May 2011 and 22 June 2011 Cntras undid the work of each of the following Wikipedia contributors:
collapsing huge and probably irrelevant list for readability |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the same one month period, Cntras filed 94 reports of vandalism.
The month above appears to be representative sample of Cntras's activity on Wikipedia, based on Cntras's User Contribution pages back to January 2011. Assuming this is so, annually Cntras reverts the work of approximately 3,348 contributors and files 1,128 reports of vandalism.
Predictably, Cntras's undoing the work of contributors discourages people from contributing to Wikipedia. As one administrator noted on Cntras's Talk page, "Not surprising they [a new contributor Cntras targeted] immediately ceased and have not edited since." (Spartaz Humbug!, 28 January 2011) Administrators have admonished Cntras against reverting contributor's work without explanation (Drmies, 6 April 2011) and for tagging articles for deletion two minutes after page creation (Spartaz Humbug!, 28 January 2011). Cntras reverted my work, without prior contact, three minutes after posting.
Given these enormous numbers of reversions and vandalism reports, one must ask whether Cntras's actions are in concert with Wikipedia's policy of encouraging the contributions of users. How many of these 3,348 contributors are no longer contributing because Cntras erased their work or harassed them by reporting them as Wikipedia vandals? Would the Wikipedia encyclopedia today include significantly more information and be significantly more useful to its audience had Cntras's access been barred some time ago? Going forward, will Wikipedia's audience be better off, on balance, with the contributions of these thousands of users, some of whom have expertise in the subject matter of their articles, or with the Cntras's solitary contributions?
You can add my name to the list of the thousands of people who have been dissuaded from contributing to Wikipedia's content by Cntras. I no longer have any interest in playing any role whatsoever in Wikipedia. ChagSameach (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- So you've taken a look at those reversions and AIV reports and verified that they were not justified? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of those reverts and reports are entirely justified. People adding miscellaneous profanity, garbage, article blanking or just plain wrong information. Blanket claims as you made above are essentially attempts at deflecting attention and poisoning the well. Please focus on the specific situation. Ravensfire (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- ChagSameach posted the same rationale on my user page. Anyhow, in terms of a viable compromise, I would suggest that we review the validity of the quotes and the references used. The content can be salvaged, although it would evidently require a significant amount of effort. -Cntras (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- HillCountries, HudsonBreeze and me
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
- Yes, through discussion.
- What can we do to help resolve this issue?
- Halt HudsonBreeze, Hillcountries, etc. from editing this article.
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Allegations found credible by the Panel" section heading in the Executive Summary, page 4 of the report. Not proven, but credible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Burt, the Foreign Service officer appears to be speaking for the British government, "The recent UN panel of experts' report, this documentary and previously authenticated Channel 4 footage constitute convincing evidence of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law." This information does not appear to be at all unreliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The opinion of the British government doesn't warrant going in the opening. And he has no authority over Sri Lanka unlike the UN. BlueLotusLK (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding such matters the British government has considerable credibility, as does the Guardian. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Links to the photos and videos are somewhat troublesome, despite their apparent authenticity, clearly a site with genuine grievances they are highly motivated to present. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The New York Times article, which User:BlueLotusLK removed, has this lead, "A United Nations panel investigating allegations of war crimes by Sri Lankan troops at the end of the bloody battle against Tamil rebels in May 2009 found credible evidence that government soldiers made civilians a target, shelled hospitals and attacked aid workers, according to an unauthorized copy of the panel’s report." A generally reliable source which clearly supports the language in the lead. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The piece in International Business Times cannot support inclusion of such conclusions as "It seems that it has, under the eyes of the International community, also been used as a cover up for a conflict that was nothing more than a racist war." That is biased, ignoring, or minimizing, the nature of the Tamil Tigers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The New York Times article, which User:BlueLotusLK removed, has this lead, "A United Nations panel investigating allegations of war crimes by Sri Lankan troops at the end of the bloody battle against Tamil rebels in May 2009 found credible evidence that government soldiers made civilians a target, shelled hospitals and attacked aid workers, according to an unauthorized copy of the panel’s report." A generally reliable source which clearly supports the language in the lead. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Links to the photos and videos are somewhat troublesome, despite their apparent authenticity, clearly a site with genuine grievances they are highly motivated to present. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding such matters the British government has considerable credibility, as does the Guardian. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fred, thanks your for your help. I would like to close this discussion if possible. I'm going to move away from editing these pages. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The opinion of the British government doesn't warrant going in the opening. And he has no authority over Sri Lanka unlike the UN. BlueLotusLK (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Burt, the Foreign Service officer appears to be speaking for the British government, "The recent UN panel of experts' report, this documentary and previously authenticated Channel 4 footage constitute convincing evidence of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law." This information does not appear to be at all unreliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
- Per comments above, closing this discussion as dispute has been resolved. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 07:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Zakat: removal of tags (moved to subpage)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Zakat. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....
Airconditioning Dispute
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- An editor named RGCorris is insistent on adding what I believe to be false information to the article Airconditioning, and has been increasingly hostile about the issue. The Status Quo version of the article stated that the song "What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up" appeared as the b-side to the single "It Happened Today". RGCorris deleted this information and replaced it with the statement that it was the second track on the a-side. His edit summary read only "correct data re single", so I reverted the edit with a note saying that the version with "What Happens" on the b-side is at least the more common version. He reverted the edit back and left a note on Talk: Airconditioning warning editors not to revert the claim without providing a referenced source. Neither his edit summary nor his note gave any reason why he believed the preexisting information in the article to be false, not even an "I heard it somewhere", but I decided the best way to avoid a fight would be to simply humor him and add the requested reference. However, this only made him more hostile. He immediately reverted the article back to his version and posted a rant in which he accused me of lying about the relevant single and of getting the information I referenced second hand. He has since allowed the statement "'What Happens' was a b-side" to remain, but has added the claim that it was also an a-side, listing as a source a website which actually lists both versions of the single with "What Happens" as a b-side. When I pointed out to him that the source he cited says the opposite of his claim, he quoted back a listing with "What Happens" as a b-side and claimed that this proves that it was an a-side. At this point, I don't think there's any hope of my reasoning skills getting through to him(and incidentally, I would appreciate any constructive criticism on said reasoning skills, so as to avoid my having to resort to this noticeboard in the future). The issue of "What Happens" as an a-side is trivial, and I have little problem with allowing that claim to remain in the article, but RGCorris's behavior in the dispute upsets me. I don't want to have to continue with my work on the Curved Air-related articles with the constant threat of him picking a fight with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
- What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Editor Martin Illa was asked to provide proper references for his claim that a particular song was a b-side. Although I was able to quote the record company's catalogue reference number for the vinyl issue with it as a second track on the A-side, and offered to send him a scan of the record label, he insisted on reverting the edit, quoting a CD booklet as his source. I have since established that the track in question was a b-side in North America and the second track on the a-side in the UK, and added that information with the catalogue reference numbers for both versions. Mr Illa's aggressive responses, where he claimed that he was not my secretary and showed no interest in establishing the verifiable truth of the matter are regrettable. However IMHO the matter has now been clarified and the dispute has been resolved, with the article containing correct and verifiable data.
Mr. Illa has also made edits on various Curved Air album pages with sections left completely blank under the sub-heading, and seems to have taken umbrage when I pointed this out, claiming that he had not yet finished his editing on them. RGCorris (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it.
- No one should have to tell you this, but a catalogue number is not a reference, not even an unreliable one. Especially not when the available sources match that catalogue number with a record other than the one you claim exists.
- I did not take umbrage on the points you mention. Indeed, as anyone reading my talk page can see, my reply to your post could not have been more laid back and friendly. Moreover, the edits you refer to are part of a project started by WP: WikiProject Albums, and I provided a clear link to this project in my edit summaries. As for being your secretary, you had just made the bizarre request that I find you a reference for a piece of information that is not anywhere in the article in question, and moreover, you did so immediately after deleting the reference you previously requested with no explanation. Against such a bizarre request, a blunt "I am not here to be your personal secretary" seemed the best way of putting an end to that side issue.
- The above should make it clearer why RGCorris is making me nervous. Absolutely anything that I say to him, even "Don't worry, I'll take care of it" and "Here's the reference you asked for", is interpreted by him as an attack.
- It doesn't help that he seems to have no ability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Let him correct me if I'm wrong, but his way of establishing that "What Happens" was a b-side in North America was by asking about the matter on the Curved Air fan mailing list. After rejecting the word of official album liner notes, he took a lone fan on a mailing list as an acceptable reference. For all he knows, the one who provided him that information was me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
List of oldest universities in continuous operation
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- There have been multiple discussions on the talk page about whether or not to include Madrasah's in the article. Common but reliable sources like UNESCO state that they are Universities, whereas academic sources do not. Once I understood this fully I was prepared to not include the Madrasah's in the article, but due to the confusion of the different sources and editors (along with myself: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) I felt that a disambiguation link at the top and an explanation in the lead was necessary to clarify the matter to our readers. User:Gun Powder Ma and User:Athenean object to this being included in the lead.
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
- What can we do to help resolve this issue?
- Come up with an acceptable compromise to clarify why Madrasah's aren't included in the article without over-burdening it.
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- One of the other issues as far as I'm concerned is the great reluctance of the other participants to discuss the matter, or to suggest possible compromise proposals. Its pretty difficult to solve the dispute when you are the only person suggesting any sensible ways forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are other religious schools included? If so, it's a simple matter of a topic sentence to say that 'Some of the oldest universities are religious institutions including... and X, Y, and Z'. A disambiguation would be overkill, just use a clearly phrased introductory sentence in the introduction's second or third paragraph. Ocaasi t | c 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article states that Universities emerged from cathedral/monastic schools in Europe, and it states they were "intrinsically linked to Christian faith".
- The other difference with Madrasah's is that a number of decent sources including UNESCO and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam do call them Universities - thus confusing the issue as to what the definition is - especially for non-academics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a definitional issue here as well as a cultural one. You should be careful about applying academic standards in this area since they are culturally and geographically dependent. It's strong Euro-centrism and Christian-centrism to define university as an educational institution which has its roots in or follows the model of that culture and style. The familiar type university is a model with certain characteristics; in the modern world it has been further codified with standards and certifications. Madrasahs may follow a different model but we should be very careful to exclude them from the broader category of educational institution because of that.
- The first issue you have to decide is whether this article is narrowly and clearly defined as universities in that Eurocentric model. If not, if you are already including other cultural-educational institutions, then Madrasahs would obviously included, since for Islamic cultures they the analogous institutions. If you are defining university narrowly, then you still have the question of whether Madrasahs meet the criteria. There are sub-question of composition and program: a) do Madrasahs do non-religious education as well? If so, that reasons for their inclusion. Do Madrasahs have clear or rigorous curriculum and graduation standards. That would also support inclusion. Do Madrasahs have a history of educating the society's most intelligent and important individuals. Further support. You would need good sources to answer those questions.
- I think a 'way-out' of the conflicting sources bind is to distinguish primarily academic from primarily religious institutions within the article. Perhaps create a separate section for religious universities, or--if that is a redundant notion historically--you might create a separate section just for Madrasahs. You should also be mindful of distinguishing religious schools, from schools that were also religious, from purely secular schools--and applying the same rubric across the board.
- In general, you want to have a list of the oldest Madrasahs somewhere on Wikipedia. And, you want to maintain a meaningful category for what a university is at the same time. The practical solution is to clearly lay out which definition or model you are using, briefly explain its trends and its background, and point readers to where they can find related information if it's not all in one place. I don't know if there's a right answer here, but it makes sense to me to group this information together, organizing it helpfully, and take some extra introductory text to give the available and necessary information about the subject. My hunch is that inclusion of Madrasahs will make sense, but perhaps qualified. If the only point of excluding them is to maintain the purity of a Eurocentric definition, and there are some sources which clearly include them, an easy solution is to include them while mentioning that they fall outside of the standard definition in the eyes of some sources. Ocaasi t | c 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. Let me first say that I don't agree that other participants haven't been willing enough to compromise, something which I consider important as long as the quality of the article is not impaired. Eraserhead's latest substantial edit was kept in its entirety, only re-arranged, something which other users have also noticed.
- It is also true that I have invested a great deal of time and effort into explaining Eraserhead the fundamental difference between Madrasas and Universities in terms of their history and characteristics. I am glad that he has come around to largely acknowledge these differences, although I have to say it is normally not the job of other editors to explain fundamentals of the article which can be easily gleaned from Google books or other easily available sources.
- I happen to think that the remaining dissent between Eraserhead and several other editor, inlcuding me, are in fact quite small. All what Eraserhead now seems to argue for is to move the link to the Islamic madrasas from "see also", where it has been for over a year, right to the very top. There are several reasons why I don't think this complies to WP guidelines and standard practice:
- a list usually does not define the topic, at least not overly. For this, there are the main articles medieval university and university. Particularly, a list does not define what the topic is all not, what is Eraserheas wants with his discussion of unrelated centers of higher education like the mosque school
- Top links are mostly reserved only for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but here nothing needs to disambiguated as Christian university and Islamic madrasa are semantically and historically totally different
- If there were a need for a disambiguating top link the first choice would be naturally to related Christian educational institution like the cathedral school and monastic school, both direct forerunners of the university, but there is no need either.
- In sum, arguing, like Eraserhead does, that university should overly refer to madrasa just because both were/are educational institutions of higher learning is as absurd as arguing that church (building) should be referring to mosque (or vice versa) because both share being places of worship. The article needs urgent attention in other matters, like the problematic definition of "continuous", but this constant side-issue of trying to put the madrasa in the limelight in a completely unrelated topic, which has been dragging on for months now, makes this unfortunately impossible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be so sure that Wikipedians shouldn't explain their knowledge whether it's available in sources or not.
- University is a cultural and historical term, but it is also a common term. The broad definition of "community of teachers and scholars" may well include Madrasahs in spirit and in current usage, even if it did not historically.
- If you want to stick to the European/Christian university model, then you should make that clear in the introduction if not the title. You should indeed offer disambiguation as a courtesy to the reader who may be looking for related information. This may be in a hatnote, or an introductory note, or the See Also section. It is not obvious what terms are used for inclusion in a list, and defining terms and identifying criteria, as well as locating a category among related categories, fields, and ideas is indeed appropriate for the introduction to a List Of articles. We want our readers to be informed explicitly, so long as length is conserved and links to information are used where explication would be excessive. Ocaasi t | c 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ocaasi, in the most general sense "community of teachers and scholars" may well include every type of school and centre of higher learning, yet nobody has ever argued to include them all in the list. In a more narrow sense, the madrasa ceased to be such a community, since there was never the legal framework between these two bodies which ruled their interaction in the university.
- This has already been done a year ago. Since then the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation is in the See also section. But Eraserhead now wants a disambiguation (like the railway station of the same name got in Roman bridge) for which, however, I haven't found yet any solid basis in the WP guidelines.
- WP:Lead defines that the lead has to summarize the article which is exclusively about the university. Apart from that, I think it is most obvious to the reader what a list of universities refers to, namely to the university and this is linked directly on top. As long as university does not offer a lengthy discussion on why it is not a mosque school or a Greek philosophical centre or a Chinese Confucian school, there seems to be little reason to do so in an ancillary list. Lists don't at all discuss these things to such a depth.
- I would think a one paragraph contextualization would be useful. Universities are X. They are different from philosophical centers, Confucian schools, Madrassahs, Yeshivas, etc. It could be brief and hyperlinked. We want to give readers access and understanding. In this area, where university represents the common name of a center of learning, we would help readers by showing them the sketch of centers of learning which are not included at the University article. I've seen several lists which do this in the introduction typically with less than 3 paragraphs. A short disambiguation hatnote would also work. This approach would blend naturally with a definition of the University as you have described it. You could also, even mention that there are cultural or etymological debates and though some sources include non-western Universities, this list does not. That's not a very big concession to make here assuming Madrasahs are kept out of the list. Although the lead summarizes the body it also provides context, basic etymology, and disambiguation.
- WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ..."Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." ..."It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time.")
- WP:DISAMBIG: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."..."Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one of the templates shown below."
- WP:HATNOTE: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed (this may happen because of redirects, because the article they are looking for uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because its name is otherwise similar to that of the article with a hatnote). They accomplish this by providing links to the article in question or to a disambiguation page." ..."[Legitimate] information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about [the book], or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." Ocaasi t | c 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would think a one paragraph contextualization would be useful. Universities are X. They are different from philosophical centers, Confucian schools, Madrassahs, Yeshivas, etc. It could be brief and hyperlinked. We want to give readers access and understanding. In this area, where university represents the common name of a center of learning, we would help readers by showing them the sketch of centers of learning which are not included at the University article. I've seen several lists which do this in the introduction typically with less than 3 paragraphs. A short disambiguation hatnote would also work. This approach would blend naturally with a definition of the University as you have described it. You could also, even mention that there are cultural or etymological debates and though some sources include non-western Universities, this list does not. That's not a very big concession to make here assuming Madrasahs are kept out of the list. Although the lead summarizes the body it also provides context, basic etymology, and disambiguation.
- @ GunPowderMa, I don't think my last edit was kept in its entirety and the other user who argees with you has also been named as a party here so they aren't a neutral person. Besides if you really believe my last substantial edit was kept in its entirety why didn't you let me just revert it to the previous state? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It has been kept in its entirety as anyone can see for himself in the edit history. Those parts which define the university negatively (= not an ancient centre comparable to those of Greece, China etc.) have only been moved to the definition section where they belong and which is still very close to the top to be swiftly digested by the reader. It is this buoyancy of material related to the madrasa to the very top of the list which makes me, to be frank, somewhat suspicious of your motives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- My objection is that its now in a different - otherwise totally unrelated - section. If you want to move all the content on the definition into the lead - or move it into a section in its own right I have no problem with it being after the other information. I suggested both of those on the talk page before coming here, and you didn't like either of those suggestions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I happen to think that the remaining dissent between Eraserhead and several other editor, inlcuding me, are in fact quite small. All what Eraserhead now seems to argue for is to move the link to the Islamic madrasas from "see also", where it has been for over a year, right to the very top. There are several reasons why I don't think this complies to WP guidelines and standard practice:
I really don't see how someone could confuse Madrasah with University. Different word, different meaning, different connotation. Give our readers some credit. Perhaps creating a separate article List of oldest Madrasahs in continuous operation might do the trick? Athenean (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- People clearly have got confused between Madrasah's of higher learning and Universities - including several reliable sources. Refusing to accept that after it has been pointed out many times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm perfectly content for there to be a different article on Madrasah's but I think it needs linking to prominently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz and CSD tagging
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- There is a dispute over User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's use of CSD tags. See [12], [13], and [14]. Also, see Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page and talk page history. Basically, I believe Maher-shalal-hashbaz over-tags for speedy deletion, especially when patrolling new pages, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz believes he can tag based on a "gut feeling", and that if others want to rescue the article, they can.
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs)
- Singularity42 (talk · contribs)
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
- We have discussed this on Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page. Rather than respond to my concerns about the effect of what he is doing on new editors, Maher-shalal-hashbaz indicated he will continue doing what he has been doing.
- How do you think we can help?
- Some general input about whether this type of CSD tagging and new page patrolling is appropriate. This is clearly a dispute between myself and Maher-shalal-hashbaz over the appropriate use of CSD tags, so some outside input will be helpful. Singularity42 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Comment from involved editor (and initiator of this thread). I believe when new page patrolling, there's a lot that can be easily tagged for speedy deletion: "Bob is the best guy in the world", "The band has self-published its first album, and will soon be known by the entire world", "The company will help you solve your IT problems", etc. But some authors write articles that clearly need a little bit more review before tagging. These are usually lengthier articles, or articles where the claim of importance cannot be dismissed out of hand. Usually a quick Google check will so;ve it one way or another. By tagging these articles for deletion based on a gut feeling, it can bite the newbies, especially ones who have actually put together a semi-decent article but are now told it will soon be deleted for not complying with our policies. I would like Maher-shalal-hashbaz to err on the side of not nominating rather than err on the side of nominating (as he put it), and realize that there are enough editors doing new page patrol that there is no need to rush into a decision of whether to tag an article for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- NPPer Observation. As a fellow NPPer, I'm looking at their work and discovereing that their quality of tagging with the various toolset is significantly out of line with community consensus. I reccomend that Maher consider reading WP:BEFORE,WP:NPP, and their associated talk pages. The prefered method if you're going to be NPPing, is to first fix any problems you can immediateley, then do a maintanance template tagging, then if the article is still helpless use the PROD mechanisims. CSDs are only supposed to be used for very narrow and very specific definitions. David Dyment was an article that Maher tagged for CSD:A7, when clearly the subject has established enough of a presence to qualify under the GNG and as such I declined the A7. Should this activity continue, I would reccomend that the user be progressiveley be sanctioned for improper use of tools and editing against community consensus Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment New page patrol is one of the most thankless, necessary, contentious, and potentially harmful aspects of the site. It has to be done, yet it is constructed in such a way that it bothers, confuses, and alienates new editors. Patrollers should make a reasonable effort to minimize the negative effect that NPP has. One of the clear ways to do that is to ask a few basic questions when they review a page. 1) Does it have a reasonable chance of being improved? 2) Was a minimal effort made to follow notability, sourcing, and formatting standards? 3) Would tagging it for CSD unnecessarily turn off a potential good editor. Relying on a "gut feeling" without asking those questions is a bad idea and NPP patrollers should find a way to internalize those into an efficient system. Where there are borderline cases, NPP patrollers should not assume that 'someone will save the article if they care enough' as often the process of contesting a CSD is unfamiliar and new editors are not prepared to do so. There is an easy alternative which is marking articles with PRODs instead. This should be used in all borderline cases. There is nothing lost by letting an article sit for 7 days, and if it's not an unambiguous CSD candidate that is what policy directs. Save CSD for the worst cases and use PROD for the rest. Since this dispute involves one editor's behavior, an RfC/U might be useful later. I don't suspsect the community would support a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach here, as much as they sympathize with the demands and crap-ful-ness of NPP.Ocaasi t | c 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had considered an RfC/U, but besides there needs to be two editors who have tried to resolve it first as a minimum requirement (which is not the case here), I agree that NPP is a thankless job, and I don't want to penalize Maher-shalal-hashbaz for spending his time doing it. I'm still trying to figure out what this noticeboard is for, but based on the description it seemed to me a useful way to gain additional input and come up with a resolution that might show Maher-shalal-hashbaz that his use of CSDs needs to change (or, alternatively, that Maher-shalal-hashbaz is right and I am incorrect). Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolution
Abortion
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
- Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the lead sentence. Put simply, one group of editors wants the first sentence of the article to read Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, caused by or resulting in its death. This is the way the article has read for quite some years now. Other editors, myself included, would prefer that it be written as Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it is viable.
Although it seems like a rather silly dispute, it has been going on for quite some time. Allow me to summarize the two parties. Party 2 believes the word viable should be used because it most accurately describes the medical and otherwise-real world consensus on the plainly stated definition of abortion. To this effect, I have gathered a very comprehensive list of sources. Every source that I looked up is listed there, bar perhaps one or two exceptions (same publishing company as another source, a derivative source, etc.). Out of the 23 sources listed, 1 uses the word death. The rest, including every major OB/GYN textbook, every major medical dictionary (as determined by an uninvolved editor, a physician who does a lot of work WikiProject Medicine's scope), and encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica, do not, and the vast majority of those state non-viability as a clear criteria for abortion. This position has the majority's backing right now, but does not have the level of support I would like for a stable article.
Party 1 believes that using the word death is preferred. They state that viable has a number of problems, including: the fact that aborting viable fetuses do occur (partial-birth abortions, late termination of pregnancy), defining viability is problematic and the limit of viability does not have medical consensus, the fact that a reader might infer embryos will not become viable, and the fact that writing it this way would "redefine abortion". They also objected to "termination", on the grounds that it was an unnecessarily technical term (seen has euphemistic by pro-life), confusing, that it frames abortion as a medical procedure and that encyclopedias have a wider scope, that it refers to pregnancy ending, does not clarify what happens to its contents, and because selective abortionsdo not end the entire pregnancy. (this past sentence adapted from a post by RoyBoy; I believe it adequately represents Party 1's position). Some editors have also noted that because "death" is a term used by some scientists to refer to the termination of a POC, it is an acceptable term to use here. Other editors believe that as "death" is not a term contradicted by any of the sources provided, it can and should be used here.
I believe that's a decent enough representation of both sides? Trout me if it isn't, and tell me how I can fix it; I would be happy to. Any uninvolved commentator here would probably be best served by reading the entire talk page at minimum before commenting anyway. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Myself
- MastCell
- Gandydancer
- Orangemarlin
- JJL
- Jmh649
- RoyBoy
- Str1977
- 67.233.18.28 / 71.3.237.145
- Michael C Price
- NYyankees51
- And several others. I'll leave a note on the article talk page to notify everyone, if that's all right (done).
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
- How do you think we can help?
Discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I agree with the use of viability in the lead. The issue of death and its context can be dealt with lower in the article where all sides of the issue can be addressed. The question is has "human death" occurred. Similar to the issue of organ transplants with some countries/cultures recognizing brain death and some not. Some do not consider "human life" to have occurred and thus "human death" has not occurred with abortion. Without context stating "death" in the definition is not WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This issue definitely falls out of the scope of this board, it's too big. The question here is, whether it could be absorbed into the current MedCab case, with the case renamed, or whether a case should be filed with the Mediation Committee. It'd seem odd to me to have two different mediations on the same topic running concurrently. If absorbing the issue into the current MedCab is the way to go, let me know, but keep discussions here now only focused on what to do with the dispute now. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's related but I think distinctly separate from the issues at the current mediation. I would prefer to keep the two issues separate if possible. Would you have any other suggestions on where to go? I'm reluctant to try formal Mediation, as I forsee only a huge time sink because of two or three of the editors (I hasten to add though, that I do believe that most of the editors are acting in good faith, and a mediation with them alone has the potential for success.) NW (Talk) 02:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the privilege that comes with formal mediation, hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an Etymology and/or Definition section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think something simple in the lead like, "artificial termination of a pregnancy" followed by a major section ==Definition of abortion== outlining all the issues you raise would be the best solution. I wouldn't worry that the short lead introduction does not comprehensively address all issues. I think it is a good general rule to not attempt to resolve issues in the lead, as then there must be winners and losers, and, of course, the biggest loser is the reader who needs to be informed about the issues not told the "correct" answer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an Etymology and/or Definition section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the privilege that comes with formal mediation, hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's related but I think distinctly separate from the issues at the current mediation. I would prefer to keep the two issues separate if possible. Would you have any other suggestions on where to go? I'm reluctant to try formal Mediation, as I forsee only a huge time sink because of two or three of the editors (I hasten to add though, that I do believe that most of the editors are acting in good faith, and a mediation with them alone has the potential for success.) NW (Talk) 02:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)