Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) |
Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) →Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion: Towards closure |
||
Line 498: | Line 498: | ||
:They are the only ones that mention the Volunteers alongside republicanism. However where is the link with the rank used by the IRA and Irish republicans of the 20th century? Where is evidence that contradicts [[Irish republicanism#Initiative]]? [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
:They are the only ones that mention the Volunteers alongside republicanism. However where is the link with the rank used by the IRA and Irish republicans of the 20th century? Where is evidence that contradicts [[Irish republicanism#Initiative]]? [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
When I suggested an RfC earlier it was mostly because that is a good way to determine a wider consensus on issues like this - it would side-step arguments about personal grievances and personal bias. For that reason that is the way forward I would choose here, although there are still other options you could choose. We could list a new post at the [[WP:ORN|original research noticeboard]] to see what they say on the matter, or we could go to informal mediation - but only if you are both willing to be civil, stick with the process, and abide by the outcome. Whichever of these you choose, I'm afraid this dispute can't stay here, as this noticeboard is not the place for long, drawn-out disputes. Sorry for the rough treatment, but I hope you can both understand where I'm coming from. Yours — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♫]]</sup></b> 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Volunteers Section Break=== |
===Volunteers Section Break=== |
||
::I think that the quotations miss the point. Some of them would be fine to prove an assertion that some later republican organizations carried on an earlier republican position or spirit, but that's not the point of ''this'' article. Mabuska seems to have some concern that these prior organizations were not truly republican, but whether they are or are not and whether they are or are not a spiritual or positional predecessor to the IRA is not the issue here. The issue here is the use of the term "Volunteer" in the singular ''as a title or rank'' for members of the IRA (and, possibly, other republican groups if the usage can be shown by [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]], though that's not in the article at the present time). Indeed, I believe the inclusion of information about the ''20th Century [[Irish Volunteers]]'' is just ''barely'' relevant to this article, and only that because it is the clear predecessor of the post-1919 IRA and its subsequent factions and splinters (both sharing, among other things, the name [[Óglaigh na hÉireann]]). The problem with the information about the 18th Century Volunteers is that it doesn't even (so far, and so far as I can find in my limited search) even that thin thread of linkage to the use of the term as a title or rank. While Mabuska raises that issue from time to time, Domer48 has yet to discuss it head-on and, for that reason, this discussion is so far going nowhere. Unless Domer48 chooses to do so, I'd second Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion that this listing be closed and the dispute move on to an RFC, MedCab, or MedCom. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 16:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
::I think that the quotations miss the point. Some of them would be fine to prove an assertion that some later republican organizations carried on an earlier republican position or spirit, but that's not the point of ''this'' article. Mabuska seems to have some concern that these prior organizations were not truly republican, but whether they are or are not and whether they are or are not a spiritual or positional predecessor to the IRA is not the issue here. The issue here is the use of the term "Volunteer" in the singular ''as a title or rank'' for members of the IRA (and, possibly, other republican groups if the usage can be shown by [[WP:SOURCES|reliable sources]], though that's not in the article at the present time). Indeed, I believe the inclusion of information about the ''20th Century [[Irish Volunteers]]'' is just ''barely'' relevant to this article, and only that because it is the clear predecessor of the post-1919 IRA and its subsequent factions and splinters (both sharing, among other things, the name [[Óglaigh na hÉireann]]). The problem with the information about the 18th Century Volunteers is that it doesn't even (so far, and so far as I can find in my limited search) even that thin thread of linkage to the use of the term as a title or rank. While Mabuska raises that issue from time to time, Domer48 has yet to discuss it head-on and, for that reason, this discussion is so far going nowhere. Unless Domer48 chooses to do so, I'd second Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion that this listing be closed and the dispute move on to an RFC, MedCab, or MedCom. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 16:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:49, 24 September 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 |
Talk:LiveJasmin#Latest proposed_"Controversy"_section_improved_after_a_number_of_suggestions_from_the_community | Closed | Alexfotios (t) | 30 days, 9 hours | Snowmanonahoe (t) | 28 days, 17 hours | Snowmanonahoe (t) | 28 days, 17 hours |
Rafida | New | Albertatiran (t) | 27 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 1 hours | Albertatiran (t) | 1 days, |
Methylphenidate | New | Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t) | 3 days, 13 hours | None | n/a | Bon courage (t) | 3 hours |
TAI TF Kaan | New | FoxtAl (t) | 1 hours | None | n/a | FoxtAl (t) | 1 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 05:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.
Location of dispute
- Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.
How do you think we can help?
Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.
1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)
1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The 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. Example3 (talk)
Zoellick bio
- Robert Zoellick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Currency1 (talk · contribs)
- Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs)
Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoellick bio}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.
- How do you think we can help?
Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000.
Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Syrian Malabar Nasrani Discussion
- Syrian Malabar Nasrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- When I found that the article: Syrian Malabar Nasrani is with a partisan view on the early socio-ethnic and cultural attributes of Syrian Christians in Kerala, I tried to introduce some space for neglected side. But the result is an edit-war. My view is that St.Thomas (or his disciple) could have probably evangelized both local people and Jewish people in the 1st century. I have introduced many reliable sources suggesting my view. Since it is not a scientific theory, the traditional beliefs of the concerned community could be given sufficient space until it is proved wrong. "All are Jews" view is nether acceptable nor proved. I request your good self to clean up the article. I think my view is more inclusive compared to the single race view of Robin Klein. All the Syrian Catholic Churches' official view contradict the idea of "All-Jews".
Users involved
- Ashleypt (talk · contribs)
- Robin klein (talk · contribs)
Ashleypt notified Robin klein of this dispute.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?
Yes. Informed Robin Klein. He is the only editor in dispute as far as I know.
==
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Raised the matter in the Discussion Board of the Article. Since there are more than 4 million Syrian Christian in Kerala and many may refer the article, it would have been appropriate to correct the document as soon as possible. So I modified the page after raising my contentions in the Discussion Page after mentioning sufficient sources on the subject. But it triggered an 'edit-war"
- How do you think we can help?
Kindly intervene to allow an inclusive article on the history of 40 million Syrian Christians in Kerala in Wikipedia.
--Ashleypt (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
POV edits by Ashleypt on the page Syrian Malabar Nasrani
I have to say that User:Ashleypt is not accurate when he says that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. There are other users as well who have reverted his POV edits. Please see the history of the article [[1]] Other editors involved include User:SpacemanSpiff and a user without an account 117.201.250.33
Ashleypt has been deleting references and adding his own ideas and now incorrectly stating that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. He has further stated there is no proof yet about Nasrani descent. However I should state that the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized. For latest research on Nasrani heritage and Jewish descent. Please refer to research by Dr Mini Kariappa, of Department of Anatomy, Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur. Dr Mini Kariappa has done DNA analysis of syrian malabar nasranis and found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis. She presented her reserach on september 5th 2011. There was a link of her interview in the malayalam language that was published in a malayalam language newspaper in Kerala. Here is the link http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentId=10033956&programId=1073753770&channelId=-1073751706&BV_ID=@@@&tabId=11
Ashleypt is trying to promote a casteist idea of nationalist supremacy that aspires to assume a 'supposed' superiority of the supposed elite 'Brahmin' hierarchical casteist society by trying to state that the Nasranis are brahmins. I should remind you that the Malabar Nasranis were persecuted in the Portuguese analogue of the Spanish inquisition known as the Portuguese Inquisition with the Portuguese burning hundreds of Syriac documents. Kindly see to it that Wikipedia does not become a platform where people propagate age old casteist ideas. Ashleypt does not give any support for stating the legends of brahmin descent saying that these are long held ideas. Denying and even brushing aside the latest DNA results. The latest DNA result shows the admixture of Jewish diaspora and local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Which has always been stated in the article. In fact he distorts the admixture with local people as admixture with Brahmin, which is incorrect and at the root of the problem. Again to repeat. The article has always maintained that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are an admixture of local South Indian Malabar people and the Jewish people just as latest DNA results support. However Ashleypt is in the attempt to remove the mention of local admixture and make it seem as brahmin. Ashleypt is not concerned or interested about the admixture of Jewish diaspora with the local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Instead his real interest is the supposed 'Brahmin superiority'. Robin klein (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoellick bio discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- I presume this concerns Robert Zoellick. I went to the BLP noticeboard in a response to Currency 1's request for help, But I found that this editor had been attempting to t negative information about alleged failures in the general operation of the bank, not in the least limited to his period, on every page possible, in such a way that they reflected on him personally. To some extent some it possibly might be appropriate to mention, but not in the extravagant way that it was bering used,a gross violation of BLP, which applies on talk pages also. My statement on the talk p there summarizes my view of the matter. My resolution of it would be to ban currency 1 from any edits regarding him or the back. The editor admits in so many words on the BLPN page there "Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through..." This editors handling of th topic is a disgrace to Wikipedia, which should not be used in this fashion. That the ed. should have carried it hereafter being rejected there indicates a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel. I have had some off wiki correspondence with the ed, which supports my view that there is no understanding whatsoever about WP not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if we reject her here, she will find yet another place for this. I conclude that I probably initially used my admin role in too restrained a fashion on this--instead of warning, I should have blocked. If any other admin wants to do so, I'll support it. It seems the only way of ending this dispute.
- I try to avoid bringing up my political opinions here, but I have no love for any aspect of the world financial system, either in aggregate or in detail, and those who know me will know I am putting this as mildly as possible. But Wikipedia is not the place to bring it down, however much it may deserve it, and personal abuse is not the method. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:
- On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.
Even though [Hilary Clinton] previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having read the entry at the BLP noticeboard from July, I would say that User:Currency1 is on thin ice. If she again restores her proposed material to our article on Robert Zoellick she risks being blocked for violation of WP:BLP. That is, for inserting unsourced negative material. The only way she can make any headway at all (if she insists in working on this article, which may not be a good choice given her COI) is to make a case on the article's talk page which is so persuasive that other editors reach a consensus to support her view. If so, someone else could edit the article to add his material. It is conceivable that appropriate secondary sources on these questions about Zoellick's personal situation may exist, but Currency1 has so far not found any. There is more discussion at Talk:Robert Zoellick#Transparency at the World Bank. I agree with what DGG had to say there. He has read the sources but could not find support for the assertions that Currency1 wanted to add to the article. I suggest that people read Demiurge's comment also. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoellick bio closing comments
Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Wikipedia articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)
I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio:
- "If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:
US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. (The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 [2][3][4])
and
President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.(April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, [5])
My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair.
Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him.
About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The documents I am citing speak for themselves. The statements of the officials which I gave you are sufficient evidence to support the fact that the US Congress has refused to approve the World Bank's capital increase. The only evidence that is missing from the sources I cited is knowledge which parts of the US Congress are responsible for vetting the capital increase and acting on it. Mr. Zoellick himself stated that one of the responsible entities is the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (See Mr. Zoellick's response to the question from Tom Barkley of Dow Jones: "Senator Kerry on the Foreign Relations Committee, which is the authorizing committee in the Senate, has made similar statements."web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:22556211~menuPK:34476~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html I trust this interview establishes the connection between Mr. Zoellick's presidency of the World Bank and the capital increase) After hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on accounting irregularities at the World Bank, including cost over-runs on the renovation of the World Bank's headquarters and over-charges to World Bank borrowers, the US Congress required independent arbitration to improve accountability. When the reforms required by Congress in the appropriations legislation did not materialize and the World Bank stonewalled a Government Accountability Office investigation into corruption that this legislation was intended to address, the US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank. The statement of Senator Lugar, ranking member in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on the end to the Gentlemen's agreement, is a reliable source to support my assertion. There are also other reliable sources on the demise of the Gentlemen's agreement. Please do not continue ad hominem attacks. I am a lawyer who was simply trying to do her job and enforce the law. Currency1 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Morrissey "image and politics" section
Closed discussion |
---|
Star of Bethlehem
Closed discussion |
---|
Portuguese language
Closed discussion |
---|
Volunteer (Irish republican)
- Volunteer (Irish republican) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
I removed this section from this article per WP:TOPIC. Domer48 reverted it citing that "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". I asked them for evidence for this on the articles talk page and they have failed to provide any.
I am vindicated in removing the section from the article as it fails WP:TOPIC and is irrelevant to the article. Domer48 has failed to answer my questions and my requests for evidence:
- Did the Volunteers (of the 18th century) use the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." as a rank, as afterall that is what this article is on about.
- That the Volunteers (of the 18th century) were republicans, what the article on this "rank" is also about.
Domer48's only response other than requesting sources to the contrary, was to edit the article to add in more examples of the Volunteers growing nationalistic ideas, and their desire for legislative independence for Ireland from England. Additions that don't say or substantiate that they were republicans. Thus Domer48 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR
His additions alone do not equate to Irish republicanism or even republicanism, especially as the Volunteers declared their loyalty to the British Crown at the very same convention that they declared their desire for legislative independence from England (this is sourced in the article). Home rule and nationalism do not equate to republicanism even if they do share many facets.
All his additions have done is increase the amount of irrelevant information in the article. If they were republicans, i'm sure it would be documented somewhere - so far no evidence at all.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
Domer48 simply refuses to engage in proper discussion of the content issue, rather stating over and over again "Sources please", when they are the one that has to provide sources to prove their relevance to the article. They also appear to be persuing synthesis and original research in the article itself to try to imply their viewpoint is correct.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Volunteer (Irish republican)}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I took the issue to the article's talk page. Domer48 has refused to answer the questions put forward to him so that he can prove his stance on the matter. Rather they have responded "Sources please". I also made a comment on their talk page however they removed it without a response. I then took it to AN/I where an editor suggested i take it here.
Update - Domer48 has since responded with poorly based and easily countered ad hominem statements.
- How do you think we can help?
To judge whether:
- The section is relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC, taking into account the article is on about a rank in Irish republicanism and the section in question contains nothing relevant to the topic of the article.
- Domer48 has violated synthesis and original research with their additions.
- That their behaviour constitues disruptive editing by preventing the improving of Wikipedia and their use of ad hominem to make up for their failure to provide evidence.
Mabuska (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Let me see if I have understood the issues here correctly. Domer48 added the "18th century Irish Volunteers" section to the article, and claims that these volunteers are directly related to the the subject of the article - the modern use of the term Volunteers, referring to the members of Irish republican paramilitary organisations. In his own words from the edit summary in this edit, "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". Mabuska contests this claim, with the arguments outlined above, and also says that there is no source in the section that links the 18th century use to the modern use. It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence, which claims "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" (my italics). Would you both agree that this an accurate summary of what you are not agreeing on? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Stradivarius, your summary would be accurate, but that the arguements against it change so often [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19], in both context and substance it is impossible to tell. The Irish Volunteers were founded in responce to the American Revolution of 1776, who forced from the Government an Irish Parliament in 1882 a section of which inspired by the French revolution would later stage the 1798 rebellion. That they were called the Irish "Volunteers" can not be disputed. That Republicans trace their origions back to these Volunteers is however uncontested, although that was not always the case. It now appears that the whole section is being disputed, despite this failed attempt to have the use of the word "Irish" removed from their title. Now as the personal attacks persist ,[20][21][22][23][24], I can't see why an editor should be badgered into a responce. Here are a number of examples were article talk pages are being undermined because of this battleground mentality, [25][26][27][28][29][30].--Domer48'fenian' 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I, like Mr. Stradivarius, am a neutral mediator at this noticeboard. You say, "That Republicans trace their origins back to these Volunteers is however uncontested" but I can find no claims, much less sourced claims, supporting that position in the article. Am I just overlooking them? Without such claims, supported by reliable sources then the connection with the 18th Century Volunteers is just an improper speculation between the specialized use of the term in reference to IRA members and the word "Volunteers" in the name of that group. Could you please point out the claims and related sources which make that connection uncontested? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Off-topic: Domer48's ad hominem statements and arguements are disassembled here, here, and in my second last response here. What exactly is bringing up an [page move] that was to do with removing the need for disambiguation in the article title, and bringing up fully explained and vindicated responses in regards to Kingsmills, got to do with this issue Domer48?
- On topic:Mr. Stradivarius and TransporterMan, you have both hit the nail on the head. All Domer48 has to do is provide evidence to back up his claims that the section meets the two points above that would make it relevant to the article. None has been given despite continued asking, and the fact i had to open an AN/I and this due to his unresponsiveness.
- I would like to point out this edit by Domer48: Failing to provide any evidence at all, they tried an attempt to pretend that the only thing in the entire section that made it relevant to the article was sourced, whereby they swapped these two sentences around, and when i added a {{cn}} tag after the sentence, they reverted it pretending that it was now sourced.
- All Domer48 has to do to resolve this issue is provide evidence that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century meet the two points above (that they were republicans, and that they used Volunteer/Vol. as a rank) which would make them relevant to the article. The AN/I and this was created to try to get Domer48 to discuss and provide evidence - which they have failed to do despite many requests, only bringing up unrelated arguements that have nothing to do with the issue, i.e. that the Irish Volunteers were created in response to the American and French revolutions. So? No-one is contesting that, but its irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank bringing up and detailing the creation and aims of a non-republican organisation that just happens to include the term "Volunteer" in its name. Mabuska (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 has now finally provided a source in an attempt to back up their claims - a single source dated to 1842, and on that i don't have the good faith to believe they have kept the context of the source intact, most notably because of the "..." and the glaring grammatical issue in his source quote that highlights a possible deception on Domer48's behalf with regards to this source:
- The origin of the Irish Volunteers, which, as an organized national military association, may be dated from 1777, ceased to exist as such in 1793…It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes.
So what exactly is this actual quote saying if you look at it closely? The source is a book about the United Irishmen, an actual republican organisation. The entire exerpt provided by Domer48 reads as: the editor is stating what they say is consistent with truth in regards to the what United Irishmen spanned ideologically, whilst stating that it is inconsistent to state it for the Volunteers. Thus it is not stating the Volunteers contained republicanism. Nice try.
Also is the quote even in the source? Not according to searches of the 1846 edition of the book and the original 1842 edition (parent link being [31].
Why is this Domer48?
Nothing that contradicts this source and quote that i added to the article which Domer48 has failed to counter or prove wrong: Duffy, Sean (2005). A Concise History of Ireland. p. 133-134. ISBN 0717138100. "Quote: We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights and no more than our rights". Loyal to their sovereign. How can republicans, especially Irish republicans be loyal to their sovereign, which was obviously the British Crown? Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Try Vol. 1 first edition, of which I have a copy! This discussion is over! Your personal attacks, have gone to far!--Domer48'fenian' 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dude. Chill. There were NO personal attacks in Mabuska's question. He asked you for your reference, and was correct to do so. And you have provided at least a partial response. If you can provide the publication information, I think this entire argument can be laid to rest. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The volume is possibly irrelevant anyways as the source isn't needed to show that Domer48's quoted exerpt may not back up their claim entirely (i am accepting that it does have some merit towards it). Domer48 if you want your source to be taken as the answer to this issue (despite the fact its only one source from 1842) then answer the following questions about your exerpt from the source:
- "It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes."
- The volume is possibly irrelevant anyways as the source isn't needed to show that Domer48's quoted exerpt may not back up their claim entirely (i am accepting that it does have some merit towards it). Domer48 if you want your source to be taken as the answer to this issue (despite the fact its only one source from 1842) then answer the following questions about your exerpt from the source:
- The bit that is embolded - as far as i read it, it says that it may be inconsistent with truth in regards to the Volunteers - or is it saying its inconsistent with its military glory?
- What exactly does it mean by "with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers"? Is the entire exerpt talking specifically about a specific institution of the Volunteers as opposed to the entire organisation?
- Is it on about the revival of the Irish Volunteers which occured in 1791?[1] Especially seeing as after the war in America ended, the Volunteer movement rapidly declined other than in Ulster where it remained.[1] Would that not make them a slightly different institution to that of the 1780s seeing as it was a revival of an organisation that had rapidly declined other than in several counties.
- Is it on about a specific branch (an institution) of the Volunteer, such as the Belfast Volunteers which held different views to most other Volunteer branches?
- What precedes this quote you provided? Does it elaborate on what "institution of the Volunteers" it is on about? It reads as if the preceeding text does indeed elaborate on it - why have you not provided that text?
- If this institution of the Volunteers does refer to a specific part or branch or the revival of it fortunes, then how can this source be used to represent the entire organisation spanning a specific part of it? Would it not be more appropriate to add into the article the specific institution or incarnation of the Volunteers it is referring to? It would be deceptive not to.
- After all the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century several years before their rapid decline did state quite clearly in 1782:
- "We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal" - [2][1].
- "Resolved unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a Grievance."[1] - Would republcans say that the king can legally make laws for Ireland?
- So this "institution" to me must be a specific branch of it as it definately wasn't the entire organisation for such a turn-around in its stance would surely be better documented than a single source from 1842.
- But at least we are getting somewhere as we now have a source of sorts for contradicting these comments by the organisation itself. I took the liberty of amending the first sentence to be more accurate to what Domer48s source states, however even if his source turns out to be good enough - how is the rest of the section relevant to the article as it goes on about the history of an organisation that has its own article, which is already linked too so that the article can remain as WP:TOPIC as can be.
- Mabuska (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sources
- Suggestion
In fact this is what i think the article could contain at this moment if we include Domer48's source put into proper context. Compare that to the article at present and you'll see it removes the Domer48's recently added bloatedness of irrelevant information in the article keeping it firmly on topic per WP:TOPIC.
Once Domer adds clarification as to what institution his source refers too, it can be added into the article and the clarification tag removed and the whole issue is done and dusted at long last!
All this for something for simple. Mabuska (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mabuska, and thanks for posting here again. I have a request for you - would you be willing to keep your comments down to the minimum length necessary, and to not alter them after you have posted them? It does make it harder to follow the conversation when there are long comments that keep being changed. Regarding the 1842 source - the issue here would appear to be whether the 18th century usage of Volunteer is connected to the modern usage, and so a source from this long ago is obviously inadequate. Any source will need to discuss the modern usage of Volunteer, and so it will need to have been written after the modern usage arose (The article says this happened in 1913). Also, newer sources are preferred to older sources, as subsequent historical research may have made the conclusions drawn in older sources outdated.
The bottom line is that if the 18th century Volunteers are included alongside the 20th century Volunteers with no indication in reliable sources that they are related, it would count as a synthesis, as it would imply that they are related when they may not be. I am not saying that they are definitely not related, but we do need evidence that they are before we can include information about the 18th century Volunteers in the article. (By the way, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the general term volunteer came into use around 1600 from Middle French, not the 18th century as the article now claims.) Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies for the ever edited comments, though i'm guilty of that when its my last comment before anyone has replied to it. Though yes i need to keep them briefer as well - it gets too easy to ramble on. Mabuska (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- And i'll amend the sentence i tweaked to match Domer48's source to place it in an Irish context. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the edit which i hope helps the clarification for the current section. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note - at the article talk page another editor has made a comment that virtually mirrors my suggestion above. Mabuska (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to second Mr. Stradivarius on his last comments about the article, above. If I may gloss on them a bit, the fact that the members of an organization whose name includes "Volunteers" are generally called "Volunteers" simply is not significant in and of itself (any more than, for example, members of the United States Congress are called "Congressmen"). The article documents with reliable sources that the modern Irish Republican Army uses, formally or informally, the term "Volunteer" as a specific title or rank for individual members. The fact that the modern (i.e. post-1919) IRA is indisputably a direct descendant as the 20th Century Irish Volunteers (and, in one or more of its various factions perhaps the very same organization as them) justifies some mention of that organization in the article. What's not currently in the article is any explicit claim or proof that the Irish Volunteers (18th century) was in name or in spirit the source of the (a) modern IRA specialized use of the term or (b) the name of the 20th Century Irish Volunteers. The mere fact that the Irish Volunteers (18th century) merely called their members, individually or collectively, Volunteer just doesn't prove that fact, and without such proof inclusion of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) information simply isn't justified. An aside: I spent a couple of hours yesterday trying to find (online only) some documented connection between the Irish Volunteers (18th century) and the 20th century Irish Volunteers or IRA and I could not find it. The closest I could find was that certain members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood founded in 1905 the Dungannon Clubs which is a indirect reference to the Irish Volunteers (18th century) and that the faction of the 20th Century Irish Volunteers who sponsored and took part in the Easter Rising of 1916 were members of the IRB and were acting in accordance with the IRB's goals, though in opposition to the leader and majority of the Irish Volunteers. It was that faction which first used the term "Irish Republican Army" to refer to itself and which, when the remainder of the Irish Volunteers switched to a more radical position due to the executions which followed the Rising and due to the Conscription Crisis of 1918, became the philosophical heart of the Irish Volunteers which were converted in 1919 to the IRA. That connection, if it is the only one which exists, is simply too tenuous and post hoc to justify mention of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) in the article. Finally, and by no means decisive but nonetheless interesting, are the photos of the County Antrim Memorial in Belfast's republican Milltown Cemetery viewable here (use the "next" button to page through all of them) which records republican deaths as far back as 1862 but which reserves the use of the "Vol." title only to 20th Century IRA members). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- And i'll amend the sentence i tweaked to match Domer48's source to place it in an Irish context. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies for the ever edited comments, though i'm guilty of that when its my last comment before anyone has replied to it. Though yes i need to keep them briefer as well - it gets too easy to ramble on. Mabuska (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- A connection is even less plausible when you read Irish_Volunteers#Initiative, which is sourced. Most notably read the first paragraph of this section which makes it clear that the Irish Volunteers of the 20th century are modelled on the Ulster Volunteers of the same time - not the original Volunteers. If Domer48 can't provide a source that meets the standard of what is acceptable for the claim, or fails to even vindicate their position - how do we proceed? Mabuska (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I too will gloss over that fact that the IRA, a title used in 1916 is the same IRA, post 1919 and agree that it "is indisputably a direct descendant as the 20th Century Irish Volunteers." I'll also brush over the fact that the Irish Republican Army don't have the term "Volunteer" in the name of the organisation, yet refer to their members as "Volunteers." That they refer to Wolfe Tone, leader of the United Irishmen as the father of Irish Republicanism, yet the United Irishmen don't have the term "Volunteer" in the organisations name. So were dose the use of this title come from? Now I did not spend the day looking on the internet, I prefer to read books. And looking through just a couple I came across the following:
- "And yet, when on April 23 the Military Council decided on the Rising, the seven men were acting within a tradition and to a large extent as an organization which could trace its antecedents back into the eighteenth century. It was in the eighteenth century that Republicanism had been linked to the long-standing Irish Revolutionary tradition." The Secret Army: The IRA, J. Bowyer Bell, page. 7
- "This movement [United Irishmen] meant to build upon the reforms that had been won by Grattan and the Volunteers a decade earlier, but it was critical of the nationalists' reluctance to carry their ideas through to what seemed a logical end." The Longest War: Northern Ireland and the IRA, Kevin Kelly, page. 9
- "It was not until three years later, when the guerrilla war against the British forces [War of Independence] was well advanced, that the name Irish Republican Army was used to unite the disparate groups that made up the rebel forces...These men and women saw themselves as part of a tradition that stretched back to the sixteenth century when the first nobles rose against English rule in Ireland. Some parts of rebel history seemed to be more relevant than others. In particular, those who supported the use of physical force saw themselves as descendants of the United Irishmen who rebelled in 1798." The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, page. 17
- "By the Act of Union of 1800, Britain and Ireland were bound together 'forever' under the 'supreme authority' of Westminster. Throughout that period, right back to the Act of Union and even earlier, an Irish republican physical force tradition existed to 'break the connection' with Britain." The Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin from Armed Struggle to Peace Talks, Brendan O'Brien, page. 10
- Now that was just some books on the IRA, I did not even bother to go through the ones on 1916. However without even trying I could name a couple which give the origin to the name used by Republicans for their clubs in Belfast the "Dungannon Clubs." I even included in the lead the following referenced text:
- "The United Irishmen who have come to be regarded as the forerunners of modern physical-force nationalism, in a line that extended to the Young Ireland revolutionaries of 1848, to the Fenians of 1867, and onto the Irish Republican Brotherhood of 1916, up to the Irish Republican Army of today."
- I think the removal of the section on the 18th Century Irish Volunteers, in the context of the use of the term would run against the current of a number of published sources. Thanks. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- All your quotes prove is that the IRA and their republican ideals can be traced back to the United Irishmen who like the Volunteers are from the late 18th century. However unlike the Volunteers, the United Irishmen (especially Wolfe Tone) are actually regarded as the forebearers of Irish republicanism. No-one is doubting that but what relevance has it to this? None of your above quotes back up that the Volunteers of the 18th century are the forebears of the IRA and Irish republicanism and their use of the term Volunteer is traced back to them. It is entirely irrelevant to an article on an Irish republican rank. Your quotes are perfect for Irish republicanism#History where they are entirely relevant.
- "So were dose the use of this title come from?" - Irish_Volunteers#Initiative states pretty clearly who the Irish Volunteers of the 20th century were inspired by in regards to organisation, and it appears its their contempories, the pro-Union Ulster Volunteers - and that is sourced as well. Mabuska (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- By the way please don't move my comment down the pecking order withoiut good reason especially as it was posted before yours. If you had an (edit conflict) then please use an {{ec}} tag. Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion might benefit from wider community input. How would you both feel about taking this to an RfC? You will be able to go through all the details of this in an RfC, which isn't really practical on this noticeboard where space is necessarily limited. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- if you think it'd help, though seeing as Domer48 has only provided one source, dated to 1842, an inadequate source it appears, to back up their view, is there really a need? If there was modern evidence i personally believe it'd have been provided long ago. If Domer48 would like more time to search for some i'm sure we could implement this which they can always expand upon when an adequate source is found? Mabuska (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Stradivarius, your dismissal of Madden as a source, who is considered to be the historian is strange to say the least, however I would welcome sources which dispute a historian who not only knew, but met and interviewed members of the United Irishmen and the Volunteers. Anyhow, here are a couple of more that might help or hinder but I'll leave that up to you?
- "This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". Page 21
- "The first Society of United Irishmen grew out of the ashes of the Volunteers and the disappointed hopes of the legislative revolution of 1782; the Volunteers grew out of the parliamentary and popular opposition to British government which had shown itself at intervals almost from the beginning of the century, and had gone on steadily widening and deepening from the accession of George III to the American war".
- "The grievances which arose during the eighteenth century between Protestant Ireland and Protestant England, and which gradually created the spirit of Anglo- Irish nationality, effected a legal revolution in 1782, and attempted a military one in 1798". Page 8-9
- "The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". Page 64
- "When the Parisian massacres occurred in 1792, moderate Republicans in Ireland feared to accept freedom accompanied with such terms. The Catholic clergy in a body separated from the Reformers, and denounced the atheism of France from their altars…During this crisis the whole body of the Irish priests were most awkwardly situated. The hatred of French infidelity and atheistic republicanism converted them into zealous Royalists, and yet they had the mortification of hearing themselves denounced as apostles of sedition". Page 65
IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888
- "A paramilitary tradition in Irish politics was launched by the Volunteers of 1782 and that tradition, whether nationalist of unionist, loyalist or republican, has continued to shape and delimit the contours of Irish political activity. The force of argument had been trumped by the argument of force". Ireland: A History, Thomas Bartlett, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521197205, page 190
I'll just post these additional sources up to knock this discussion on the head. Again, they do in fact illustrate that the points I made above were and are indeed correct.
"Arthur Griffith later wrote that the declaration in favour of Irish unity by the mainly Protestant Irish Volunteers in 1782 annihilated earlier differences and created one nation. Amalgamation was still the official policy of the republican movement during the first Irish revolution." Ireland's Terrorist Dilemma Yonah Alexander, Alan O'Day, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, 9780898389128, Page. 170
"After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5
"If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967.
Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of those i think only five merit relevance to this discussion:
- "This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". Page 21"
- Does a "republican temper" equal a republican organisation? No.
- ""The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". Page 64"
- Sounds like an organisation made up of people of mixed political ideaologies, an organisation (party in the above) that broke up with the republican portion seeking reconciliation with southern Catholics. Does that make the organisation before it broke up a republican one? No.
- "Arthur Griffith later wrote that the declaration in favour of Irish unity by the mainly Protestant Irish Volunteers in 1782 annihilated earlier differences and created one nation. Amalgamation was still the official policy of the republican movement during the first Irish revolution." Ireland's Terrorist Dilemma Yonah Alexander, Alan O'Day, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1986, 9780898389128, Page. 170
- The first sentence is on about the Irish Volunteers. What is the second sentence on about? The republican movement or the Irish Volunteers (18th century)?
- "After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5"
- As the above quote you provided shows - not all Volunteers held the same political ideaology. As the republican minded ones formed the United Irishmen, that doesn't make the Volunteers a republican organisation.
- "If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967.
- An offspring? Does that equate to the Volunteers being republicans?
- They are the only ones that mention the Volunteers alongside republicanism. However where is the link with the rank used by the IRA and Irish republicans of the 20th century? Where is evidence that contradicts Irish republicanism#Initiative? Mabuska (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
When I suggested an RfC earlier it was mostly because that is a good way to determine a wider consensus on issues like this - it would side-step arguments about personal grievances and personal bias. For that reason that is the way forward I would choose here, although there are still other options you could choose. We could list a new post at the original research noticeboard to see what they say on the matter, or we could go to informal mediation - but only if you are both willing to be civil, stick with the process, and abide by the outcome. Whichever of these you choose, I'm afraid this dispute can't stay here, as this noticeboard is not the place for long, drawn-out disputes. Sorry for the rough treatment, but I hope you can both understand where I'm coming from. Yours — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Volunteers Section Break
- I think that the quotations miss the point. Some of them would be fine to prove an assertion that some later republican organizations carried on an earlier republican position or spirit, but that's not the point of this article. Mabuska seems to have some concern that these prior organizations were not truly republican, but whether they are or are not and whether they are or are not a spiritual or positional predecessor to the IRA is not the issue here. The issue here is the use of the term "Volunteer" in the singular as a title or rank for members of the IRA (and, possibly, other republican groups if the usage can be shown by reliable sources, though that's not in the article at the present time). Indeed, I believe the inclusion of information about the 20th Century Irish Volunteers is just barely relevant to this article, and only that because it is the clear predecessor of the post-1919 IRA and its subsequent factions and splinters (both sharing, among other things, the name Óglaigh na hÉireann). The problem with the information about the 18th Century Volunteers is that it doesn't even (so far, and so far as I can find in my limited search) even that thin thread of linkage to the use of the term as a title or rank. While Mabuska raises that issue from time to time, Domer48 has yet to discuss it head-on and, for that reason, this discussion is so far going nowhere. Unless Domer48 chooses to do so, I'd second Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion that this listing be closed and the dispute move on to an RFC, MedCab, or MedCom. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, to the extent that point may have been claimed, it is mostly irrelevant to this dispute. I say "mostly" because if it is true, then of course, the 18th Century Volunteers are irrelevant to the article. But that's going around the long way to settle the dispute, is obviously subject to disagreement, and misses the 600-pound-gorilla in the room: the affirmative obligation under Wikipedia policy and guidelines to prove that there is a connection between the 18thCV and the title/rank use of the term if the material is to remain in the article. I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that the 18thCV were republicans and are part of the tradition of Irish Republicanism, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. First, I never said that the Volunteers were Republican. I said that the origins of Republicanism can be traced to them. I know that this my seem slow, but would you agree a number of sources have stated that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to them. --Domer48'fenian' 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually Domer48 you did say that they were republicans. It was your arguement for reverting their removal. Mabuska (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to the 18thCV, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption?Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Strike that. Modified answer coming in a moment. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)- I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that the origins of Republicanism can be traced back to the 18thCV, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? (Because of the ambiguity of the phrase "trace their origin," the question I struck out is inappropriate as to presume it to be true can be read as presuming the truth of the point which I believe to be the real issue here.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well as you would as soon not say, it is probably immaterial as the editor who filed this report, accepts it now. The editor also says that this article is on about the "rank", so could you address this issue because no where in the Lead of this article dose it mention anything about "Rank". Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. First, I never said that the Volunteers were Republican. I said that the origins of Republicanism can be traced to them. I know that this my seem slow, but would you agree a number of sources have stated that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to them. --Domer48'fenian' 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I said above, to the extent that point may have been claimed, it is mostly irrelevant to this dispute. I say "mostly" because if it is true, then of course, the 18th Century Volunteers are irrelevant to the article. But that's going around the long way to settle the dispute, is obviously subject to disagreement, and misses the 600-pound-gorilla in the room: the affirmative obligation under Wikipedia policy and guidelines to prove that there is a connection between the 18thCV and the title/rank use of the term if the material is to remain in the article. I'd just as soon not say how I feel about that issue and instead ask this question: Presuming for the sake of argument only that the 18thCV were republicans and are part of the tradition of Irish Republicanism, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Domer48 dont mistake rewording a sentence to what a source states as equating to me accepting it and that everything you've added is relevant. If i dd then why are we still here? Your rank arguemebt is purely semantics. What is a rank if not a description of members? Mabuska (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- TransporterMan just so you are clear, Volunteer is both a description applicable to all IRA members, up to the Chief of Staff and a rank analogous to "private." Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 20:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Moving on
As I'm fairly happy with the opening paragraph on the section titled 'Original usage of the term Volunteer' I'd be more than happy to remove most of the text and move it to Irish Volunteers (18th century) and build up that article. Thanks again for all your help,--Domer48'fenian' 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- sigh I find this very strange, when it was the very same editor who add it in the first place.--Domer48'fenian' 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's hardly very strange when i asked clearly above that you need to clarify that statement. You failed to answer the question of what "institution of the Volunteers". Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I also find your unwillingness to answer TransporterMan's question very perplexing, as it vindicates my position that there is no evidence that the 18th century Volunteers used the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." to describe their members (yes i used the word "rank" beforehand, but its purely semantics) - thus there is no evidence that it is of relevance to the article regardless of whether your now fairly happy with this.
- And on that sentence, the mediators here both dismissed the source being used as not proving the 18th century Irish Volunteers relevance to the article for several very valid reasons you haven't been able to counter. Also i'm not the only editor who objects to the relevance of the entire 18th century Irish Volunteers section.
- This is what the article should look like per WP:TOPIC going by the lack of evidence to prove their relevance compared to what the article is like now. As there is no evidence to vindicate Domer48's position, and that they now appear (not stating that they definately have) to have backed down, then in my opinion the dispute should be easy to settle. If however we are to include the sentence Domer is now happy with (despite the issues with the source being used), then i'd suggest my previous suggestion be the one used as it clearly puts the source into context (i.e. 1842). Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, the editor having accused me of deception a gross violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in regard to a source, for the editor to then go and first use the source and claim that they are "Ameding statement to be more in line with what your source actually states" is totally bizarre. When the editor goes and adds the source, it is mind boggling for them to add a citation needed tag and ask me to clarify their "Ameding statement".--Domer48'fenian' 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Domer48 it's actually a clarification tag, not a citation needed tag. And anyways it was a question of possible deception (made clear by the "?" in the section header, and my statement afterwards. Your quote was possibly deceptive in that you provided it as evidence that the Volunteers were republicans, despite the fact it only described an institution of them (a part of them) as containing republicanism. Maybe i worded it improperly (the question of deception) - i don't have the biggest vocabulary in the world - however it was a serious question. Would you care to answer TransporterMan's question as well as mine on what "institution"? Mabuska (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- And by the way: "When the editor goes and adds the source" - no i didn't. You did, and to unfortunately put it bluntly, it was deceptive, as the source didn't back up the statement which you left untouched until i had to reword it to match the source. Mabuska (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Domer48 it's actually a clarification tag, not a citation needed tag. And anyways it was a question of possible deception (made clear by the "?" in the section header, and my statement afterwards. Your quote was possibly deceptive in that you provided it as evidence that the Volunteers were republicans, despite the fact it only described an institution of them (a part of them) as containing republicanism. Maybe i worded it improperly (the question of deception) - i don't have the biggest vocabulary in the world - however it was a serious question. Would you care to answer TransporterMan's question as well as mine on what "institution"? Mabuska (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- TransporterMan, the editor having accused me of deception a gross violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in regard to a source, for the editor to then go and first use the source and claim that they are "Ameding statement to be more in line with what your source actually states" is totally bizarre. When the editor goes and adds the source, it is mind boggling for them to add a citation needed tag and ask me to clarify their "Ameding statement".--Domer48'fenian' 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting a little crazy now. The editor is now says that they want me to clarify their clarification.--Domer48'fenian' 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Domer48 please stop improperly twisting every statement i make to detract from the issue at hand so that it gets bogged down in tedious tit-for-tat responses. Focus on the issue at hand and answer the questions asked of you. It should be as simple as that. Mabuska (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is getting a little crazy now. The editor is now says that they want me to clarify their clarification.--Domer48'fenian' 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I will leave this until TransporterMan or someone else can try and explain what is going on here? The editor is now saying that they "reword it to match the source" and now want it clarity their clarification.--Domer48'fenian' 11:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Driving While Black
- Driving While Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- 76.231.150.69 (talk · contribs)
- 69.15.156.226 (talk · contribs)
- Freechild (talk · contribs)
- Cntras (talk · contribs)
- Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Driving While Black}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.
- How do you think we can help?
Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy.
Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Driving While Black discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree. My gut tells me Freechild won't revert his/her un-redirection so easily just based on your and my opinions, or at all, so I am wondering what the next step should be? Is there a target number of contributors weighing in, or a specific amount of time this discussion should be left open, before doing the redirect (assuming the consensus points towards doing so? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I wasn't aware of the background discussion when reverting. I should've taken it into account when I came across the article via recent changes. -Cntras (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cntras, your revert occured back in March during the initial discussion, and you appear to have been doing it thinking an unknowing IP editor was trying destructively edit an article. I'll give this a little more time to see if Freechild wants to respond, but if not I think restoring to the previous consensus is not out of line. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general).
The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your well-considered input. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. My only concern is that if we move all the rest to racial profiling and leave the specific parts about the term in the article, then the Driving While Black article will be reduced to a short definition, which would make the article violate WP:NOT#DICT. I believe the term is notable enough to be discussed in the racial profiling article, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article, so could certainly add more to the racial profiling article, including a short discussion of the term "driving while black" and similar terms used to describe racial profiling. With a redirect for the term itself to that section, I would think that should be satisfactory, unless there is some sort of agenda for making sure the specific term "Driving While Black" has it's own article which I am unaware of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your proposal, and for reaching out to me. That was a great thing to do. With regard to the earlier so-called consensus, which it was not since the anon IP acted almost unilaterally, I do not like engaging in conversations with anon editors who cite WP rules and guidelines as easy as the one involved in this case did. They refuse accountability, and as this one's edit history shows, they clearly only use this IP for pushing their POV. I don't say that lightly, as I've been accused of this many, many times. However, I do believe the anonymity represents a distrust and disdain for process. That said... The term "driving while black" clearly legitimate enough to warrant a WP article separate from racial profiling. While I know that it's not a popular meter anymore, there are 2,200 google scholar hits on the term. It is real vernacular that has crossed from popular usage to academic usage, and has clear cultural notability. Mr. Stradivarius, while your title suggestion is interesting, the simple fact of the matter is that the topic of driving while black is a demonstrable cultural phenomenon that has credible, third party sources demonstrating its validity in a variety of ways. I believe we must maintain the integrity of WP by deliberately including terms that we disagree with, if only because they're notable. • Freechildtalk 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hold on a second - I didn't say that we couldn't have an article on the term "Driving While Black". About Mmyers1976's concerns about WP:NOT#DICT, that would only be a problem if the resulting article was very short and didn't contain more than a dictionary definition. If the term is notable and there are enough sources on it to create a decent article, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we can't have an article on it. In fact I have had a little look for sources on the etymology and usage of the term, and I found some very good ones (for example this source). Rather than getting rid of the article altogether, what I suggested was that an article on the wider topic of racial profiling in traffic policing called "Driving While Black" may fall foul of WP:TITLE. Do you think it would be possible to have a more neutral title than "Driving While Black" for a more general article on racial profiling in traffic searches? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I have played around with a draft of what the article might look like if we took out discussion that was just about racial profiling and the sources themselves didn't mention "driving while black" or a variation of. You can look at it here:User:Mmyers1976/Driving_While_Black_Draft Everyone feel free to play around with it. Incidentally, three of the sources are dead links, and the assertion about the term "shopping while black" is unsourced, those should be fixed if the article remains. I personally don't "disagree" with the term, or find it biased or offensive, but looking at the article, even if we keep the article, "Driving While Black" appears to be the wrong title for the article. The article puts most of its weight on variations on the term, so really the article is not about "Driving While Black", the article is about "(insert activity here)-ing while (insert ethnicity here)". Obviously THAT title won't work either ;). I noticed as well when looking at the sources for the variations, none of those sources acknowledges that these are derived from or are variations on the term "driving while black". So, if we are going to keep the article, the way I see it is we have two options: 1. Rename the article so the title is more descriptive and doesn't put too much weight on any one variation. 2. Flesh out the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that it doesn't violate WP:NOT#DICT. For the first option, I can't think of a suggestion. For the second item, I think it would be important to use sources that discuss the usage of the term, not just provide examples of the term being used, or else the article is in danger of becoming a link farm. I think we would also need sources that clearly establish that "driving while black" is the dominant variation, or else the original term from which the other terms sprang. Freechild, you seem to be the one who really feels strongly about keeping the article, how do you envision that we could expand the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that the article isn't a dictionary definition or really a discussion of all the "*-ing while *" terms? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I found another source, a widely known one (ACLU) on Driving While Black that may or may not be helpful in fleshing out the article: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways. I would like to note the title, however: "Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation's Highways." This pretty much confirms that "Driving While Black" IS racial profiling, which we already have an article on. Therefore, in order for the "Driving While Black" article to stand on its own, it needs to discuss the term, not the concept. First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your assertion in the final line of this argument, and would move that we come to consensus on that approach: "First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling." • Freechildtalk 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Madhyamaka
- Madhyamaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk Polemic replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There appears to be a new user 'LhunGrub', who is unwilling to listen, discuss, or compromise about the content of the article. He is merely reverting any changes to the article.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
I am a longstanding but infrequent editor, and dispute resolution appears to be different every time some issue arises. This probably needs a 3rd party. It appears that LhunGrub doesn't know or understand WP:RS
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Opened up talks on the article and on his talk page.
- How do you think we can help?
Provide a 3rd party.
20040302 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Madhyamaka discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
User is using typical boomerang behavior. The reference is sourced. I went out of my way to type some of it out on the discussion page, but I am not going to type out several pages worth. LhunGrub (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another problem is that the user moved critical NONPARTISAN introductory Madhyamaka material out of the lead. Obviously this is due to the lack of understanding of Madhyamaka in general. LhunGrub (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Clearly I disagree with this. I consider LhunGrub's contribution to be tantamount to original research. He has use a reference which does not substantiate his claims in the article. Moreover, he is focussing on a rather specific objection that occurs within the Tibetan academic tradition of Madhamaka, which is not particularly meaningful regarding the scope of a school of philosophy which covers several continents, many cultures, and about 1,900 years. (20040302 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
20040302 and LhunGrub, I think you may find it hard to get uninvolved editors to weigh in on your conflict, as your disagreement is over a fairly arcane subject, and difficult to wade through everything to see what you are talking about. 20040302, it might be helpful if you include diffs of the edits that LhunGrub has made which you disagree with. I can see why the "distillation sentence was problematic, while worded as if it was an objective statement of fact, it was obviously non-neutral and pro Madhyamaka. Lhungrub, I suggest you stop with the accusations of "boomerang behavior" both here and in your edit summaries. I don't know if that is something you made up, or if you are trying to invoke WP:boomerang but it doesn't seem very descriptive of 20040302's behavior, so you look a bit foolish throwing it out, and at any rate it is not civil, so just stop. I suggest take a break from this article for a little while. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of course he is engaging in WP:boomerang behaviour. For yet another example, right here he accuses me of original research when I have painstakenly quoted the source which says almost exactly what I have written. Actually I have quoted MULTIPLE sentences on the discussion page for this illiterate's benefit. He is the one who is inventing his own Madhyamaka theories on the discussion page i.e. original research. LhunGrub (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- my opponent appears to be making my case for me. 20040302 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- mmyers, it may be arcane to you, just as species of saltwater fish are arcane to me - but it's a pretty major (living) philosophical tradition, with a vast academic corpus. There are plenty of individuals who understand the basics. However, my concerns are far more to do with attitude and openness of spirit. Unsubstantiated claims, abuse, and aggressive reverts to incoherent text is a major reason why I contribute to WP less frequently than I used to. 20040302 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are a funny guy. You destroy a functional article, deleting introductory material, and call the reverts "aggressive." BOOMERANG. LhunGrub (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have been contributing to this article since April 2004. I like to think that at least some of it's merit is in light of my contributions, rather than in spite of them. I wish you would prefer to enter into considered discussion rather than resorting to aggressive snipes. 20040302 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- (fixed response) 20040302, I assure you I was not attempting to belittle your area of interest, merely pointing out that the issue over which you and LhunGrub are in disagreement isn't one that the average wikipedian will understand. I know considerably more than the average nonbuddhist about the fundamental beliefs and major divisions of Buddhism, but I found the issue the two of you were discussing hard to wade through. I wouldn't call it "the basics" that an average Wikipedian should understand. Based on your initial posts, I assumed you were bringing a content dispute here, but it now sounds more like you are more concerned with LhunGrub's behavior than the content, and in that case, perhaps starting a Wikiquette Alert discussion about his behavior might be called for. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are a funny guy. You destroy a functional article, deleting introductory material, and call the reverts "aggressive." BOOMERANG. LhunGrub (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
When did you start this dispute resolution, like 5 SECONDS after I first replied to your discussion section (which was only created an hour before) on the talk page?? Regardless of the issues, your various actions are way off. LhunGrub (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Clerk's Caution (and PS re complexity): The instructions for this noticeboard say:
Discussions on this page should be focused on the issues brought here. Issues should be raised in a concise, calm, and civilized manner. It is not a new forum to list "beefs" about another editor. Off-topic or non-productive discussions can be closed after due warning, as the board is designed to diffuse disputes, not escalate them.
Please maintain civility if you hope to obtain assistance here. Discuss edits, not editors, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I agree with Mmyers1976 regarding the complexity of this dispute. I'm afraid that you may not find a mediator here with the expertise needed to sort out the competing claims. (I know I couldn't figure it out.) If that turns out to be the case, you might consider asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy or doing a request for comments using {{rfc|reli}} (or doing the RFC and dropping a note at the two projects asking for comments on the RFC). TM
- I agree with TransporterMan's assessment. I had a look at the talk page and at the source in question, and I think anyone attempting to mediate here would need to be knowledgeable about Buddhism. I think you should leave a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism and see if you get any responses. We do have some good editors who are listed as being part of the wikiproject, so that seems like a good thing to try first. I think that it may also be possible to take this to informal mediation, but you would probably need to "translate" for the mediator and that would make the process take longer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Lexi Thompson
- Lexi Thompson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
User:WilliamJE undid a large chunk of content on this page. User:Crunch, who created most, but not all, of that content, reverted the change charging bad faith and asking that changes of this scope be brought to the Discussion page. User:WilliamJE refused to bring the issue to the Discussion page to try to bring in more editors and a brief edit war ensued with some discussion taking place at User talk:WilliamJE. The site as of this minute is in place with User:WilliamJE's last edit.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
WilliamJE has previously been involved in other disputes involving golf pages, with many of the regular golf article editors. Some of this is documented on his Talk page. As a case in point, see this: Post from WilliamJE on my (Crunch's) Talk page addressing edits I have made in the past that he supposed had to fix and addressing me in an unprofessional and rude manner.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Lexi Thompson}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
1. Encouraged WillamJE to discuss the change on the article's Discussion page.
- How do you think we can help?
What can we do to solve this problem? I think the change should be brought to the Discussion page so consensus can be reached. What can we do to facilitate that?
Crunch (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Lexi Thompson discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I know that Crunch discussed the issue on WilliamJE's user page, but there is no discussion of the issue on Talk:Lexi Thompson. I know crunch said he encouraged WilliamJE to start a discussion, so why didn't Crunch just start a discussion along the lines of "I readded the information, and here is my reasoning why."? It seems like the best thing to do would be start a discussion there so the other editors on that article could weigh in on the issue. If you don't get enough responses that way, then take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf, where editors who work on a lot of articles on pro golfers could say "yes, amateur losses should be listed that way" or "no, they shouldn't be listed that way". If your belief is found to be the consensus, and WilliamJE still keeps reverting, then some other action can be taken. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Mmyers is spot on about this. This board really needs to see that engagement (even if it's a talk page discussion that has been out there for 10 days) has been attempted first before we weigh in on the topic. Hasteur (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe this dispute could have been sorted out through more discussion on the article talk page. Looking at the discussion on WilliamJE's user page, however, it looks like it was a good move to open this up to third-party input. This dispute looks to be about whether the results from Lexi Thompson's professional record outside of her Tour membership are suitable for inclusion in the article. Crunch seems to be arguing that it is suitable, but WilliamJE seems to be arguing that these results are not of great consequence, and tantamount to trivia. I can't find any specific guideline on what kind of results to include in golf articles, so in the absence of this, I think filing a request for comments on the article talk page may be the best way forward here. You could also advertise the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf. I would note also that it is possible to collapse the table, if that would help the two of you reach a compromise about its inclusion. Let me know what you think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- The table in question is either trivia or already covered in other parts of the article.
- 1 Approximately half the results are minor league golf tournaments. Minor league sports results aren't notable with the exception of Thompson's one victory which is listed in her professional wins section.
- 2 Thompson's LPGA Tournament results are included in her LPGA Summary box or her win box. Active pro golfers have a box where there results are summarized, plus boxes for wins and playoff results(A playoff loss is notable). Golfers from Tiger Woods down to the journeyman pro with one career PGA Tour win don't have their results listed from week to week event to event etc etc. A win and playoff box and a yearly summary is considered sufficient by golf editors not just myself. The narrative parts of the article can be used for pointing out other noteworthy happenings that the other boxes don't sufficiently provide for. I add things to golfer articles all the time things like- He was the 18 and 36 hole leader at the 19?? PGA Championship before going on finish tied for 19th. See Gary Hallberg and [[Jeff Mitchell (golfer)}Jeff Mitchell) for examples
- Crunch will raise the point that this kind of table is present in articles on Michelle Wie and Todd Fujiawra. I'll argue they shouldn't be there either. Is a golfer missing the cut notable? 70 or so golfers have this happen to them at most PGA Tour and LPGA Tour events. Is a golfer finishing T31st or 10 shots back notable? It's all WP:recentism or sports results which I'll get to in a moment. Ms. Thompson is a celebrity because of the golf talent she has at her age. She has one major league professional win, there are hundreds of golfers with just as many or more and some of them are quite young also Do they all warrant coverage in such minutaie?
- Thompson's overall results are covered in the other sections of the article and in the long narrative, mostly written by Crunch.
- 2 The strongest argument against the table is WP:What wikipedia is not or namely the section on an indiscriminate collection of information. A table of all golf results fits the build. Where do we say enough is enough? When Ms. Thompson retires?- William 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Opening up a request for comments seems like a good next step, including the option to collapse the table. I'll do that. Can you also tell me what can be done about User_talk:WilliamJE's repeated personal attacks against me and against [[User_talk:Tewapack? Check out WilliamJE's, my, and Tewapack's talk pages for more, as well as the edit summaries he's been leaving around the site attacking us. He seems to be angry that he article's need cleaning up. --Crunch (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- One other question. Is there any way I can put the disputed content back in the article while the RFC is open so people can actually see it? I'm afraid if I do this, WilliamJE will just delete it again. Posting it on the Discussion page might be unwieldy. --Crunch (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend taking concerns you have over personal attacks to WP:WQA. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I second this. WQA should get you the outside input that you need here. About the disputed content - just use a permanent link. Here's one I made earlier. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Opening up a request for comments seems like a good next step, including the option to collapse the table. I'll do that. Can you also tell me what can be done about User_talk:WilliamJE's repeated personal attacks against me and against [[User_talk:Tewapack? Check out WilliamJE's, my, and Tewapack's talk pages for more, as well as the edit summaries he's been leaving around the site attacking us. He seems to be angry that he article's need cleaning up. --Crunch (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- What does Real Time MRI have to do with the dispute over Lexi Thompson? I think this is in the wrong place. --Crunch (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, my fault. I moved it into a new discussion. Martin.uecker (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Real-time MRI, MRI
Closed discussion |
---|
Femme Fatale Tour
- Femme Fatale Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
User:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th [32], arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj [33][34] and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. [35] [36] [37] Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." I opened a discussion here, but other editors encouraged me to open a discussion on the article's talk page. I did, and of course, it didn't work. I even invited another editor and he still reverted all the changes. He's also removing more information from the article that we did not discuss.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Itsbydesign (talk · contribs)
- Xwomanizerx (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Femme Fatale Tour}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits. It's basically the same situation as the previous discussion.
- How do you think we can help?
Itsbydesign should understand that as a Wikipedia editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion.
Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Femme Fatale Tour discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture
- Non-lethal weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Obstructionism, stalling, ignoring the outcome of a previous dispute resolution.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs)
- Berean Hunter (talk · contribs)
- Binksternet (talk · contribs)
- Hh (talk · contribs)
At some point, a highly biased section entitled “Allegation of torture” was created. It cited only an Amnesty International opinion paper as “proof” that the allegations were true.
I objected to the section outright as not neutral. I also allowed that a different source (I suggested a few, most especially an FBI document I’d seen years ago but can not name now) could give the same basis, but be neutral.
Berean Hunter and Binksternet have dug in their heels instead; I eventually took it to a mediation, where [TransporterMan] eventually found that the material should be included, but with a revised title and with BOTH SIDES of the picture included.
After this I started a new discussion on the section in question. Between 13 and 16 September hh and I hashed out a revised section with the exception of inline citations; hh supplied citations, but I don’t understand how to get them in-line.
After waiting a full day, with no revisions or comments on the new text (only on the lack of inline citations), I went ahead and put the revisions on the main page awaiting someone (presumably hh) to include the inline citations.
Berean Hunter immediately removed the revisions as “original research” (despite the fact he’d had at almost a week to object to the text at this point).
At this point, they’ve been told to “fix it” but have flagrantly refused to do so.
EDIT: hh has attempted to work with me on this issue. I am unsure he has any interest in this matter one way or the other at this point.
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture}} --~~~~
on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Two SEPARATE discussions on the subject, including one request to simply use a different (un-biased) source and a sub-section simply to hash out the final text. Yes, I have tried very hard to work this out beforehand.
- How do you think we can help?
Tell them to:
Stop stalling;
Stop reverting the page.
If they want “inline” citations, they can include them; I’ve already stated I don’t understand how to do this, it’s a trivial matter, and the biased material is still up.
Additionally:
Batons and Caltrops are considered lethal weapons under the laws of all civilized localities. Anarchies do not have laws, but even in those areas people understand that these are an attempt to take life.
The entire tone of the page has a deeply anti-police ‘tone’ to it. I am NOT referring to the talk page; I treat the talk page as a rough draft to be discussed. I am talking about the overall tone of the page itself. If it can be arranged, have someone go over the page and review it for the use of weasel words and dodgy logic.
Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I think we can dismiss the additional caltrops issue as already discussed and closed with consensus. Many secondary reliable sources were brought forward to show that caltrops are considered non-lethal weapons, but Reddson stuck to his one primary document, an arguably irrelevant law from California which determined that an individual's use of caltrops would be prosecuted by California the same as if a felony deadly weapon had been used, but did not define caltrops themselves as a deadly weapon. Very many other highly regarded expert sources call caltrops a non-lethal weapon. Reddson was the sole voice arguing to remove caltrops from the article about non-lethal weapons. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Reddson has not described this dispute very well. He chose to forgo the discussion which may lead to consensus and in the face of the other three editors involved in the thread, he went against Wiki policies with this edit which is original research & synthesis with an attempt to use cite needed tags as placeholders which is unacceptable. He filed a bad faith 3RR report on me which was summarily rejected and Reddson was counseled both there and at this thread at ANI. He continues with a case of I didn't hear that and is now forum shopping. Despite joining Wikipedia in 2008, he claims to not know how to find nor form citations...and apparently doesn't know how to sign his name correctly as it is missing the datestamp. It isn't for a lack of others supplying the links to pages where Reddson may learn how to do those things but rather he doesn't want to. He seems to want to rush under the incorrect perception that he is right and that he prevailed in the MedCab case and accuses others of stalling and having an agenda. He will have to learn that there is no deadline at Wikipedia and that if he plans to contribute at Wikipedia in a meaningful way, he will need to learn our policies & guidelines as well as how to do the functions required of an editor. Otherwise, he isn't going to get very far.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)