Dominus Vobisdu (talk | contribs) |
Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) →Santorum vs santorum: Closed as already under discussion in another forum |
||
Line 824: | Line 824: | ||
==Santorum vs santorum== |
==Santorum vs santorum== |
||
{{DRN archive top|Closed as already under discussion in another forum. The dispute resolution noticeboard can't issue binding decisions on content, and the likely outcome of a thread here would be "take it to an RfC", only that has already happened multiple times. If you want an uninvolved admin to close the present RfC, the correct place for that is the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. If disputes keep recurring, consider taking this to the [[WP:MEDCOM|mediation committee]], and if all other avenues have been exhausted you could consider the [[WP:ARBCOM|arbitration committee]]. Best regards, [[User:Mr. Stradivarius|Mr. Stradivarius]] ([[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|talk]]) 08:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC) }} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 07:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> |
|||
* {{pagelinks|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} |
* {{pagelinks|Campaign for "santorum" neologism}} |
||
Line 887: | Line 887: | ||
*Wrong forum, and stinks of forum shopping. There is no need for DR as MULTIPLE attempts to garner consensus for the merge proposal have overwhelmingly failed over the years, the latest attempt included. If anything, an univolved administrator should be requested to close the latest RfC. |
*Wrong forum, and stinks of forum shopping. There is no need for DR as MULTIPLE attempts to garner consensus for the merge proposal have overwhelmingly failed over the years, the latest attempt included. If anything, an univolved administrator should be requested to close the latest RfC. |
||
:Also, the statement that "the issue is not resolved in the minds of most participants" is patently false, as the !voting records show, both for this and for the many preceeding RfCs. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 08:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
:Also, the statement that "the issue is not resolved in the minds of most participants" is patently false, as the !voting records show, both for this and for the many preceeding RfCs. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 08:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{DRN archive bottom}} |
Revision as of 08:57, 14 February 2012
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Robert (doll) | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 2 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, |
Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 2 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, |
Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, |
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, |
Aidi | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 1 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 4 hours | Traumnovelle (t) | 1 days, |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
Thanksgiving
- Thanksgiving (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 is a months long dispute in this article about the lede. The very short lede, in the opinion of several editors over the months, is deficient in not summarizing the content of the article. Apparently, there are some editors (Glider87 and Fnagaton) who are adamant that nothing remotely religious be in the lede. The problem with that is the article mostly discusses the origins of this holiday, including religious origins. See, Talk:Thanksgiving#Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution for the most recent discussion. Anupam is accused of pushing POV in the opposite direction. Generally, odd policy rationales, threats of dire wiki consequences, obsessive focus on the history of the dispute instead of moving forward, etc. seem to be employed in the service of preventing progress. In addition, recently, Smallbones has suggested that Glider87 and Fnagaton are single issue editors.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the 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=Thanksgiving}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Lots of talk on the talk page. There was an RfC by Anupam, where no conclusion was reached. I most recently requested mediation to no avail.
- How do you think we can help?
Provide guidance on relevant policy, and help restore reasoned discussion, in the service of making progress on the article.
Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanksgiving discussion
A part of this discussion has been archived. The discussion is still active below—please add your comments there. Click "Show" to see the part of the discussion that has been archived. |
---|
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I hadn't made an edit to the actual article until 3 very short edits this week. But I had noticed a very bizarre thing about the article and pretty nasty stuff on the talk page a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving and since. The bizarre thing about the article was that its obvious religious origins were almost completely missing - folks do know that it is named after a religious service, don't they? On the talk page it was all about bullying behavior and an RfC that was used only to confuse matters and bully further. In any case I've included a couple of very reliable sources under further reading and will get around eventually to including the material in the body of the article and then the lede. Please don't be complete sticklers though - sometimes it's a bit easier to organize things by editing the lede then adding material to the body! And just to underline the facts - there is no doubt that the holiday has religious origins. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense to remove information a critical piece of information from the lede when other reliable sources explicitly mention the religious origins of the holiday. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that some form of religious roots are all but implicit in the name itself. I have never encountered anything in reliable sources to the effect that the Puritans were being "thankful" to the Indians for their help. That being the case, and the rather obviously religious nature of the Plymouth colony itself, it strikes me as being an all but unarguable reference to their being "thankful" to their god. I grant that, over time, the religious element has to some degree been downplayed, and perhaps, given the secular nature of modern society, rightly so, but that is a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think to get some productivity out of this discussion, and to allow the editors affected to go back to editing Wikipedia positively—I will hold a straw poll below where you can vote your opinion on key topics. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Break
No, I don't think that works. I used "religious deities" covers pretty much all possibilities. Not all are Christians, even if it's the majority, I would think a neutrally worded term like religious deities would be most appropriate here. The fact that the Thanksgiving article at present concentrates on the United States/Canadian perspective does not mean that we should do the same with the lede. We should try to write all articles in a worldwide perspective. Normally the lede would be written after the article is complete (read: Information on other areas that celebrate Thanksgiving) is entered into the article, but in this situation I don't see a major issue with writing up the lede first. I can help with finding reliable sources later, but this issue is focused on the lede, and I think that the lede I proposed would cover all aspects adequately. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
|
If that proposed wording of the lede works for all here, then I'm fine with that. Note: Could another user active at DRN tie this one off? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note to new DR clerk: Looks like we need buy-in from, at least, Glider87, if possible, for my last proposal. Also, is there a way to append this to the talk page whenever it's done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take over this DRN discussion for you, Steve, since Steve will be taking a much needed break from Wikipedia. To the parties: Just let me review the DRN discussion and I hope we can all resolve this dispute soon and bring closure. For starters, I will immediately address Alnscottwalker's concerns above. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, at this time, all we can do is wait for the other parties replies. Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal is nearly there but I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much, according to the article there is some controversy about how widely accepted the religious roots are. For example some of the sources I've seen reject the idea that the original Thanksgiving in the US was even religious. Glider87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really? How about sharing these sources? We can't write an article based on original research. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sources are already in the article. The article sources already mention that the Canada and US versions of Thanksgiving might not even be relgiious. So I find myself leaning towards something more like Steven's version to be honest, I don't think it needed copyediting. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Really? How about sharing these sources? We can't write an article based on original research. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal is nearly there but I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much, according to the article there is some controversy about how widely accepted the religious roots are. For example some of the sources I've seen reject the idea that the original Thanksgiving in the US was even religious. Glider87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, at this time, all we can do is wait for the other parties replies. Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take over this DRN discussion for you, Steve, since Steve will be taking a much needed break from Wikipedia. To the parties: Just let me review the DRN discussion and I hope we can all resolve this dispute soon and bring closure. For starters, I will immediately address Alnscottwalker's concerns above. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Section break 2
How about another suggestion: "Thanksgiving has significance for both religious and secular aspects, as it is recognized in that way across the World." And then after, a one-sentence explanation on the religious aspects and a one-sentence explanation on the secular aspects. How does that do? Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's too open to interpretation, it doesn't make the due weight obvious enough. As Steven said Thanksgiving "today is primarily identified as a secular holiday".Glider87 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- But for the sake of compromise, I would suggest using a neutral version between both points-of-view. Who knows—maybe there are people elsewhere in the World who celebrate Thanksgiving as a religious holiday. I'm going to make an assumption that the parties to this dispute are telling from their own experiences and how they were raised knowing about Thanksgiving. So, even though, Thanksgiving is primarily identified as a secular holiday, there is still a visible minority that celebrates it as a religious holiday. For example, to a greater extent, Christmas is a religious holiday for Christians but is a secular holiday for the rest of the population, we can adapt to the lede provided there: Christmas. Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Neutrality doesn't mean mentioning both points of view without due weight though. That's why I think Steven's version more closely applies neutrality and due weight. Glider87 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- But for the sake of compromise, I would suggest using a neutral version between both points-of-view. Who knows—maybe there are people elsewhere in the World who celebrate Thanksgiving as a religious holiday. I'm going to make an assumption that the parties to this dispute are telling from their own experiences and how they were raised knowing about Thanksgiving. So, even though, Thanksgiving is primarily identified as a secular holiday, there is still a visible minority that celebrates it as a religious holiday. For example, to a greater extent, Christmas is a religious holiday for Christians but is a secular holiday for the rest of the population, we can adapt to the lede provided there: Christmas. Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Whenaxis, I agree with your approach - your sentence is brilliant and I support it. I offered the sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." This is very similar to the sentence you offered. In this way, both the religious aspects (giving thanks, worship services) and secular aspects (reunions, football games, parades) are acknowledged. User:Glider87's suggestion is incorrect because it does not acknowledge that for many individuals, the holiday is still a religious one; to fulfill WP:NPOV, we need to acknowledge that Thanksgiving has both religious and secular aspects. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anupam you are incorrect because your version doesn't apply due weight and I pointed out why before, I ask you to not keep on repeating the same already refuted arguments. For me Whenaxis's approach is moving away from something that is workable rather than towards it. Moving back towards Steven's version would be the way forward. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewing the archive again, Steven's suggestion "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is even closer to WP:DUE than the other version. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I prefer User:Whenaxis' version better as it fulfills WP:NPOV, both neutrally mentioning that the holiday has both religious and secular aspects. User:Whenaxis, your version also resounds with information from Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 on Thanksgiving:
Thanksgiving Day is the day set apart for special services in the churches for expression of the gratefulness of the people for the benefits bestowed by the Almighty: it is the day, too, of home-comings and family reunions in the genial warmth of the spirit of the season; the day of bountiful feasts graced by turkeys and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pies, in deference to a custom almost as old as the coming of the pilgrim fathers, for it was with them that it originated.
- User:Whenaxis, I am looking forward to the comments of other editors on your version. Thus far, it is the most concise and most neutral version proposed! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I note that it would be unwise to try and play us off each other. We're here to help and work as a team. Glider87 prefers one version, Anupam prefers another version. So we need to work towards a verson that works for all involved. Feel free to use User:Steven Zhang/Proposals to come up with something that works for you. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anupam I already explained why your proposal doesn't follow the policy about neutrality. The policy about neutrality doesn't mean "neutrally mentioning" it actually means giving due weight. That's why Steven's version is much better. Again I must ask you to not keep on repeating your old refuted arguments. Glider87 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whenaxis' proposal seems like a way to make it past this impasse. We cannot be stubborn. Compromise is an essential part of consensus. You see that, don't you, Glider? Whenaxis' suggestion is a compromise I can live with and should be implemented post haste. – Lionel (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot compromise on interpreting policy. The proposal violates policy so it is a policy issue, not a simple content dispute. I've explained at great length why it violates policy. So far not a single counter arugment has been made on the basis of policy, only comments saying "I like it!" which frankly isn't good enough for generating a good consensus. This is because consensus has to be arrived at by making good choices not "I like it!" choices. Bad choices would be, for example, repeatedly proposing things which do not address the previously mentioned concerns about policy. I would point out that repeatedly proposing things which do not address valid policy concerns is not compromise either. Glider87 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whenaxis' proposal seems like a way to make it past this impasse. We cannot be stubborn. Compromise is an essential part of consensus. You see that, don't you, Glider? Whenaxis' suggestion is a compromise I can live with and should be implemented post haste. – Lionel (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, I prefer User:Whenaxis' version better as it fulfills WP:NPOV, both neutrally mentioning that the holiday has both religious and secular aspects. User:Whenaxis, your version also resounds with information from Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 on Thanksgiving:
- Reviewing the archive again, Steven's suggestion "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is even closer to WP:DUE than the other version. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- This proposal by User:Steven Zhang "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is the least biased version so far so I would go with that. The two recent proposals in this "Section break 2" do not represent the article so are not suitable. Christmas is not similar enough to Thanksgiving for a comparison to be made. Fnagaton 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh. I'll read over this and discuss tomorrow. Just shows what one day off does :-p. Will comment tomorrow (like in 10 hours) but I would note I think comments like "I prefer this compromise" and "I prefer that compromise". A compromise is something you all can agree on. If you can't agree on it, then it's not a compromise then, is it? I also note that we are not obliged to contravene policies in order to settle a dispute. Not saying that's happened here, just noting it. I've also seen very few reliable sources presented. The one referred to above may be reliable, but it doesn't appear to be an impartial source. Now, don't kill each other while I sleep :-) 60.242.141.102 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I realize that Thanksgiving has more of a secular aspect to it nowadays, but it still may be as important to those who recognize it as a religious holiday. I respect both parties' point-of-view, and those of you who keep pushing your POV, should look at it from the other's perspective. Christmas was just an example of how compromise would look like between religious and secular. It's impossible to come to a consensus or move further from a dispute without having compromise. Compromise is something that is acceptable by all parties, not necessarily something that all parties want. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I take issue with the characterization "those of you who keep pushing your POV" because it isn't pushing a POV to insist that policy about neutrality and due weight is followed in the article. It is pushing a POV to insist that the religious claims should be inserted into the lede without due weight given. It doesn't matter if someone religious thinks religion is important to add to the article lede because of their version of Thanksgiving, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be produced with that kind of personal bias. I'm religious and I am still able to logically see that what Anupam proposed is contrary to Wikipedia policies. I also realise that Wikipedia policies are there for the benefit of everyone, not just the religious. Anupam and others needs to separate the religious beliefs with what the facts actually say. Wikipedia articles report the world how it is and not how religious people want it to be. Respecting the other parties' point-of-view does not mean automatically allowing their biased point of view into the article lede. I respect Anupam's beliefs but his beliefs are still not allowed to be forced into the article lede just because he believes them. If you allow "respect both parties' point-of-view" thinking to mean inclusion of beliefs into articles then you would end up with the article on Earth mentioning in the lede that the Earth is still considered to be flat, just to please those who still believe such things. Which is no good for an encyclopedia and also contrary to policy. The article on Christmas is not a good example to use for this article since the two subjects are not the same. As I said before, many times, Anupam's proposals do not include due weight and allow the reader to incorrectly assume that Thanksgiving is religious, some of them are obviously pointy in the extreme as was mentioned on the article talk page and the RfC. His proposals therefore fail Wikipedia policy tests which is why I disagree with them. My disagreement is only based on Wikipedia policy and isn't based on anything else. Glider87 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I realize that Thanksgiving has more of a secular aspect to it nowadays, but it still may be as important to those who recognize it as a religious holiday. I respect both parties' point-of-view, and those of you who keep pushing your POV, should look at it from the other's perspective. Christmas was just an example of how compromise would look like between religious and secular. It's impossible to come to a consensus or move further from a dispute without having compromise. Compromise is something that is acceptable by all parties, not necessarily something that all parties want. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that all realize that there are many ways to phrase an article that complies with policy, not just one way. Also, rigidness in maintaining that there is only one way to apply policy to an article is not going to achieve anything worthwhile because it is not an accurate statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There isn't only one way, but as demonstrated by some other proposals there are many wrong ways.Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Glider87, what ideas do you have on making the lede acceptable by policy and encompasses both points-of-views? Maybe then we can find a compromise between my suggestion, Steve's suggestion and your suggestion. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be Steve's suggestion, I cannot think on how it could be improved beyond what it currently says and also have it within policy. If you cannot suggest something that is better and also follows policy I suggest we use that proposal. Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to comment that it does encompass both points-of-view keeping in mind WP:DUE. Any objection to Steve's proposal? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see a more recent proposal than the one I objected to a while ago. So, yes, I still object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer User:Whenaxis' version because it takes into account that religious traditions (such as giving thanks, the presidential proclamations which reference God, and church services) are still commonplace. At the same time, it acknowledges that Thanksgiving has a secular aspect as well. User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia supported this assertion as well. Not to single him/her out but, User:Glider87, found mention of Jesus in the lede for the Christmas Eve article to be "against policy" as well and his position was soundly refuted when an RfC was held (the RfC was closed, with the administrator stating "anyone who disagrees, please go get your vision checked." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anupam as already explained what you prefer does not give due weight so it is not up for consideration. What you "prefer" is also not an objection based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday."? By the way you didn't tell me you had called for an RfC to allow me to argue my case instead of misrepresenting what I wrote. So your RfC is invalid since it did not follow process. You also completely missed the point that I was teaching you about reliable sources. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to comment that it does encompass both points-of-view keeping in mind WP:DUE. Any objection to Steve's proposal? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be Steve's suggestion, I cannot think on how it could be improved beyond what it currently says and also have it within policy. If you cannot suggest something that is better and also follows policy I suggest we use that proposal. Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
My take on the lede I proposed is that it details that it is primarialy identified as a secular holiday, though other aspects remain. Alternatively, you could use something like "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. In modern times, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday, though to an extent other observances remain" or something similar. How's that? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- What country has a holiday called Thanksgiving that celebrates its Independence? Who or what was being thanked for the harvest you talk about? What are you talking about? You are either being unaccountably vague or strangely obscure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- In regards to the harvest, see Labor Thanksgiving Day which is detailed in the article. Also see this portion of the article as an example, Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages. As for the independence bit, I was sure I read it in the article at some point, but can't see it anymore. That portion can always be removed. At this point, it seems you are starting to argue with the mediators here as well. I don't think that's a wise course of action to take. We're here to help. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- What country has a holiday called Thanksgiving that celebrates its Independence? Who or what was being thanked for the harvest you talk about? What are you talking about? You are either being unaccountably vague or strangely obscure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it, we are here to come to reasoned consensus that's generally done by relying on sources and presenting them faithfully in the article. And with sticking with what you have previously said is reasonable. So, questioning what you don't find in the article or sources is bound to happen. We are agreed then that independence is not mentioned, which is why I asked the question. With respect to Labor Thanksgiving, as I pointed out to you above, yes it has a religious analog. Who or what were the Europeans (god), voyagers (god) or Indians(great spirit) thanking? That's why I proposed this to cover all of that.
- "Thanksgiving has roots in religious traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances."
- And you approved that as an acceptable formulation. I would ask that you improve on that, if possible, not ignore it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't approve of that, I approve of Steven's version that I quoted earlier on. I ask that you try to improve Steven's version without loosing the message it conveys. With regard to labor day Thanksgiving it isn't thanks to God or some other "great spirit" it is thanks to one another, it isn't religious, it is entirely secular.Glider87 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Labor Thanksgiving has roots in religion. And you have not said why you disapprove of the formulation, I set forth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't approve of that, I approve of Steven's version that I quoted earlier on. I ask that you try to improve Steven's version without loosing the message it conveys. With regard to labor day Thanksgiving it isn't thanks to God or some other "great spirit" it is thanks to one another, it isn't religious, it is entirely secular.Glider87 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This is starting to become rather long. The Thanksgiving article at this point states, in the history section "Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages." The Labor Thanksgiving article says in the second sentence of the lede The law establishing the holiday cites it as an occasion for commemorating labor and production and giving one another thanks. I think this details that there is more than one reason for thanksgiving apart from religious concerns. I also note my concern about points of view here. When this issue first came to DRN, there was very little religious detail in the article, and now it's changing to the other end of the spectrum. I think my lede section is a fine balance based on the reliable sources presented in the article. I don't think continuing to discuss the same points over is going to be productive, either. If we cannot come to a resolution then I would recommend mediation be pursued so the issues can be analysed in detail. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish to mediate this, I am still open to that, it went no where on the talk page when I suggested it before bringing it here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker you are wrong to claim Labor Thanksgiving has religious roots, it doesn't, it is a 100% secular event. In relation to your proposal I did say why I disapprove of your proposal in my comment starting with "I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much" at 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)". Later on I came to think Steven's version was better and I still think Steven's version is the best option.Glider87 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is what I was referring to with respect to Labor Thanksgiving Day. Almost the entire History section says: "Labor Thanksgiving Day is the modern name for an ancient cereals (rice, barley/wheat, foxtail millet, barnyard millet, proso millet, and beans) harvest festival known as Niiname-sai (新嘗祭?). The Nihon Shoki mentions a harvest ritual having taken place during the reign of the legendary Emperor Jimmu (660–585 BCE), as well as more formalized harvest celebrations during the reign of Emperor Seinei(480–484 CE). Modern scholars can date the basic forms of niiname-sai to the time of Emperor Temmu (667–686 CE).[1] Traditionally, it celebrated the year's hard work; during the Niiname-sai ceremony, the Emperor would dedicate the year's harvest to kami (spirits), and taste the rice for the first time." Kami are spirits in the Shinto religion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- That is not "religious roots", that is spiritual roots. Spiritual but not religious in other words.Glider87 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is what I was referring to with respect to Labor Thanksgiving Day. Almost the entire History section says: "Labor Thanksgiving Day is the modern name for an ancient cereals (rice, barley/wheat, foxtail millet, barnyard millet, proso millet, and beans) harvest festival known as Niiname-sai (新嘗祭?). The Nihon Shoki mentions a harvest ritual having taken place during the reign of the legendary Emperor Jimmu (660–585 BCE), as well as more formalized harvest celebrations during the reign of Emperor Seinei(480–484 CE). Modern scholars can date the basic forms of niiname-sai to the time of Emperor Temmu (667–686 CE).[1] Traditionally, it celebrated the year's hard work; during the Niiname-sai ceremony, the Emperor would dedicate the year's harvest to kami (spirits), and taste the rice for the first time." Kami are spirits in the Shinto religion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker I will ask you the same question I asked Anupam, do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal?Glider87 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. It mentions things not discussed in the article, as I said above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"Thanksgiving has roots in religious and other traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances." [adding "and other" before "traditions" in the first sentence.] That works, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do think I detailed where the other aspects of thanksgiving was described, mainly, the last paragraph in the section below the lede in te article. I feel we are going in circles. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You've also admitted it had things not in the article. I will also point out that nowhere does that section mention deities. So, are you insisting on your sentence? Because if you are then this DR has failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am suggesting a compromise. I am not insisting on my sentence, but I do think it is a well-formulated sentence. It doesn't say deities, it mentions God as well as other religious beings, so deities is the correct term I think. I'll see what other DR users think we should do here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you are interested in compromise, I find it quite odd you don't directly address my proposals. The first time I made one you talked about God and Christianity, when my proposal said neither of those things. Until finally you said it is acceptable. This time you just ignore it, altogether. So, we appear to have communication failures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about this? "Thanksgiving has roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is often celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just phrasing-wise I would substitute "various" for "other." But looks fine to me. Although. I was particularly interested in tying capital "T" Thanksgiving with small "t" thanksgiving for etymology reasons, that can slide, if necessary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you are interested in compromise, I find it quite odd you don't directly address my proposals. The first time I made one you talked about God and Christianity, when my proposal said neither of those things. Until finally you said it is acceptable. This time you just ignore it, altogether. So, we appear to have communication failures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am suggesting a compromise. I am not insisting on my sentence, but I do think it is a well-formulated sentence. It doesn't say deities, it mentions God as well as other religious beings, so deities is the correct term I think. I'll see what other DR users think we should do here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You've also admitted it had things not in the article. I will also point out that nowhere does that section mention deities. So, are you insisting on your sentence? Because if you are then this DR has failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do think I detailed where the other aspects of thanksgiving was described, mainly, the last paragraph in the section below the lede in te article. I feel we are going in circles. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's see what everyone else thinks. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would say this "Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." It gives beter due weight. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about, Historically, Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions. ? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK! Glider87 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll leave this open for a few days and see what everyone else thinks. Let's see if we can get this implemented and closed. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK! Glider87 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- How about, Historically, Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions. ? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it should start at the beginning
- The article mentions in a sort-of incidental manner that the original roots are from harvest festivals. Perhaps the Pagan roots of these festivals should also be included as well, for example some mention of Greek festival Thesmophoria and the goddess Demeter; or if we look to the Wiccan Lammas or Mabon. In either case, it may actually be appropriate to mention the intention to give thanks to the "Goddess" as well! Norbytherobot (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Or more likely, since it is now primarily (when capitalized) a US holiday - start in Plymouth - where the settlers were certainly not as "religious" as the later Puritans - and did, indeed, treat it as primarily "secular" (heck - they even used "civil marriage ceremonies" and not religious ones.) Certainly they did "thank God" during it, but that was not a particularly dominant part of the party, and the Indians who attended were pretty certainly not church-goers. Modern "Wicca" is, indeed, modern. And the Plymouth ceremony-party was heavily focussed on venison and turkey and not on the corn harvest. Collect (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
List of thrash metal bands
Closed discussion |
---|
Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute
- Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Battle of Jaffa (1917) (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 is a dispute regarding what engagements should be included in this template.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)
- Jim Sweeney (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=Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
After numerous attempts to edit the template according to both editors views of the campaign discussion has continued on the talk page where no resolution is within sight. During this process Jim Sweeney created a stub article Battle of Jaffa (1917). This stub article is substantially based on coverage of the engagement in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article and really needs to be deleted.
- Comment The battle of Jaffa article is hardly a stub, the background information is taken from the battle of Jerusalem which is reasonable as it was the preceding battle. However Jaffa is part of the aftermath of that article and covered in one sentence All three infantry brigades of the 52nd (Lowland) Division managed to cross the River Auja on the night of 20–21 December. It is a recognised battle by the British, with the award of the Battle Honour Jaffa to the units involved. The battle was not part of the battle of Jerusalem as its around 40 miles away and fought 14 days after the city was captured. It was part of the Jerusalem Operations part of this campaign, which include the Affair of Huj, the Action of El Mughar and Capture of Junction Station (8 - 14 November), the Battle of Nabi Samweil (20 - 24 November), the Capture of Jerusalem (7 - 9 December) and the Battle of Jaffa (21 - 22 December). Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- How do you think we can help?
As both editors hold their views firmly there appears to be no way forward, as things stand. It was suggested by the editor who put a seven day hold on the template to apply to the dispute resolution noticeboard but I'm not sure how it works, nor what to expect.
Rskp (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute
Template:Cue I notice that on the template talk page Nick-D said that these issues have been cropping up on several different articles. Could anyone give us an idea of the other articles that are involved? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some time ago, when the names of the Affair of Abu Tellul and Affair of Katia were changed to battle, there were arguments on the MilHist talk page and I think on the articles' talk pages. There have also been arguments about the name of the Anzac Mounted Division which appears, at this time, to have been resolved. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I believe all the points have been covered at the template talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#What should be in Campaign Box templates. In connection to the two articles Katia and Abu Tellul, editors were invited to comment at WP:MILHIST. Several editors have commented on the talk pages and a consensus was reached to change the article names to a non POV name. RoslynSKP has never been happy with those decisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the background. It looks like this dispute is being debated well on the MILHIST talk page, and I don't see any sign that discussions there have stalled just yet. Let's wait and see if that discussion finds a consensus before doing anything else. If there is still no agreement after the end of that discussion then I think an RfC might be the best step. You can use my boilerplate RfC template to help structure it if you like. What do you both think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- How can the official name of a military engagement be POV? Twice in the recent past Jim Sweeney has ignored consensus reached on the MILHIST talk page when the consensus has gone against him, in one case he sort to transfer the discussion to WP:Australia. I must say I am not optimistic but remain hopeful that somewhere on Wikipedia I can get a fair go. --Rskp (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hang on a second - before we talk about the specifics of the case, let's agree on the general outline of how we will proceed. What do you think of my suggestion to follow the MILHIST conversation, and if that doesn't find consensus, to hold an RfC? And by the way, I've also posted on the MILHIST talk page in an effort to stop the conversation there from going round in circles. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- How can the official name of a military engagement be POV? Twice in the recent past Jim Sweeney has ignored consensus reached on the MILHIST talk page when the consensus has gone against him, in one case he sort to transfer the discussion to WP:Australia. I must say I am not optimistic but remain hopeful that somewhere on Wikipedia I can get a fair go. --Rskp (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to make clear that I have never ignored consensus. If I have links should be easy to provide.Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Jim Sweeney opposed the move of the ANZAC Mounted Division article to Anzac Mounted Division despite the MILHIST talk page consensus supporting Anzac Mounted Division denying there had been a consensus. In the process he went through a number of articles and changed the division's name from Anzac Mounted Division to ANZAC Mounted Division.
Subsequently Jim Sweeney substituted Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division which is the official name of the division and again went through a number of articles and changed the division's name. After a second long discussion on MILHIST talk page the consensus was that the Anzac Mounted Division was the appropriate name. At which point I went through and changed the division's name back to Anzac Mounted Division in a number of articles. Then I sought to move the division's article back to Anzac Mounted Division.
When the MILHIST talk page didn't succeed for a second time, Jim Sweeney apparently took the argument to WP:Australia, which I thought a parochial approach as New Zealand is also involved and the main MILHIST talk page was the appropriate place to air the problem. I don't know what discussion took place there as I had had enough. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thats not quite accurate - but its getting away from the dispute over the template etc.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I forgot to add the links to the discussions I referred to. The first regarding ANZAC is here [4] the second regarding Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is here [5]. I don't know where to find the discussion on WP:Australia as I only read about it taking place. And the discussion regarding moving the Anzac Mounted Division article can be found on that article's talk page. I'm not sure what Jim Sweeney is referring to that is "not quite accurate".--Rskp (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Jaffa dispute
Jim Sweeney has misrepresented the amount of copying that he has added to the Jaffa battle article from the Jerusalem article stating: "The information in Jaffa that is covered in Jerusalem is the background before the battle" and "The only part of Jerusalem that mentions Jaffa in in the aftermath, as it happened 11 days after the capture of the city, in a different place 40 miles away. As its part of the aftermath its covered in two sentences". [6].
A comparison of the two articles Battle of Jaffa (1917) and Battle of Jerusalem (1917) sub headings 3.3 24 November: First attack across the Nahr el Auja and more particularly 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa will shows, that of the 17 sources quoted in the Battle of Jaffa article, only three which are at the end of the article, are not mentioned in the four paragraphs of indepth description of the Jaffa battle in the 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa subsection of the Battle of Jerusalem article.
Because the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article is completely copied from an already existing article, except for two lengthy quotes from the web sites in the Aftermath section, it should be deleted, not only from the campaign template but from Wikipedia.--Rskp (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Rskp, if you think that the article should be deleted, you can nominate it at AfD. I'm not sure if it would be kept or not - a quick Google Books search showed that there are sources, but that some of them say the label "battle" is exaggerating its importance. In any case, it's not really relevant to the campaignbox dispute, so we probably shouldn't discuss it here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overnight this article has been substantially re edited and the amount of copied material from the Jerusalem article diluted, so its becoming less a slavish copy. However, the instance of Jim Sweeney's misrepresentation of the amount of material in the Jaffa article, at that time, which was copied from the Jerusalem article is still of major concern. --Rskp (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
- Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (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 are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the 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=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Talk page discussion, already linked to above.
- How do you think we can help?
Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse.
Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion
- The issue is not understood - what exactly is being contested - the figures or the means of depicting them? AshLin (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is weather or not the figure of 90k POW's also include the 15k civilians. It started of like this, the article had in it some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel I checked the source and this number looks to have been arrived at by someone subtracting the number of civilians from the troop estimate.[7] though they their figures wrong. So we need a few opinions on, A) Are the academic publishers which state 90,000 odd troops were taken as POW's correct, in that they exclude the civilians? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that this seems better for an RFC (as I suggested on the talk), however it will be a good idea to have opinions of users who have dealt with such issues related to POWs and wars. RFC would invite random users, so DRN might be a help from a different angle (hoping that we have users here that have dealt with such issues or can be invited by mediators?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving casualty figures total capture figures (my apologies; I misread the description and assumed we were looking for deaths, not prisoners). Let me see what I can come up with in the way of sources, and I'll try to quote a few figures here. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources (insert citations here to avoid weasel words) report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- The case here is that RS state both views, what I feel is that some authors didn't do any research for finding out exact number of prisoners and their composition or didn't consider it an important issue. You will even find sources (of course RS) saying 90k POWs in one para and 93k in the next para (the same source). You may get help from Military History Wikiproject (TG suggested it at talk but we couldn't work on his suggestion), there are some senior and experienced editors who may be able to help us here. --SMS Talk 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the late reply - I needed a brief WikiBreak, and I assumed someone else from DRN would have jumped in by now. SMS - I understand what you're saying, but if we're all agreed that these are all reliable sources, why not simply say in the article that the reliable sources present conflicting information? After all, we're not trying to draw our own conclusions here - we're just trying to present what can be verified through outside sources. If the reliable sources say different things, then it's not undue weight to present that fact in this case. Do you feel differently? If so, how? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Purpose redirected
- Purpose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Intention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Teleology (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?
Requesting attention to Viriditas' (V) redirect contribution [8] leading to a dispute at Talk:Purpose#Redirect_roll_back. Despite previously offering to host the article in user space, V has made no real effort to improve the article content. V closed a previous RFC and then implemented a redirect, after the long standing article was re-written with new sources. V's redirect does not meet redirect guidelines, nor does it appear to benefit the Wikipedia reader with useful educational information (see [9] ) which is why we are here at Wikipedia.
In this recent dispute, V contented without sources, that the re-written article was POV bias because of a source's 1916 date [10]. Even thought the re-written article has 12 sources from 1290 to 1997 included, and over 6 additional sources have been proposed during the talk discussions. V then demanded tertiary sources, and one was presented in V's scientific area of concern.
To justify the redirect, V then contented the article is a wp:coatrack. Despite that What Is not a coatrack guidance says: "An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition".
The article title is a widely applied term, and content can clearly say so. With fair editorial judgment an NPOV article can be made. It is a term which has taken on slightly different meanings in different fields of study, particularly in scientific history. When presented in a NPOV, the sources verify that the term has a notable and significant role in science, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, religion, psychology, machine intelligence and possibly nihilism. Wikipedia is not a directory (or re-directory), it publishes balanced reliably sourced and notable information.
The word is found in the dictionary and the thesaurus, which are considered tertiary sources. It has had notable scholars research and apply it within their specific fields of study, each taking a slightly different view to the term, which is why a NPOV article on the term is justified. Despite the term's wide application and important meanings, V contents it's not possible to frame an NPOV article on this term, without embarking into OR grounds. V contents that only by finding a encyclopedia entry or some tertiary source, which V can accept in strict interpretation, can V allow a Wikipedia entry. V is ignoring Wikipedia:WINAC and a reasonable editorial approach, that primary and secondary sources can be fairly attributed to present the term in a properly framed NPOV article. V also rejected a proposal to WP:hatnote the article with sensible editorial judgment, which would assist the Wikipedia reader. Hatnotes are supported by WP:R#PLA, when as in this case, redirecting doesn't make sense.
The fact is that Wikipedia has many articles based on terms which have taken on meanings in different field of study, for example: existence, truth, logic, infinity, goal. Each having none to little tertiary support. The common sense editorial approach has been to present the etymology and the historical evolution into fields of study, relevant applications and links to other main articles which deal with the specific applications in detail. This is similar to a disambiguation guide, but with sectioned paragraph content, where careful attention to the sources treatment of the term, and relevant perspectives are presented in NPOV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor, is it a publisher of original thought. As a community of diverse contributors, NPOV articles are made which balance the verified sources without presenting new analysis.
V also incorrectly proposed an alternative redirect, based on their synthesis of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, and the absence of an entry on the specific term. Reference sources treat the term as a word that is distinctly different then V's proposed redirects. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia project, and unlike paper encyclopedias, it has presented terms which are then expanded with verified educational content.
Without citing adequate sources indicating that a redirect would be appropriate, V has been unable to support the redirect. Likewise, V has been unable to articulate precisely why the specifically written article content presents POV original research, except for attacking me personally as an OR contributor and demanding more sources. Looking closely at WP:Redirect, V's proposed redirects have not served the redirect purposes stated in that guideline.
Simply put, the article term has been the specific subject of reliable sources and scholarly research, and an article is justified, as long as it does not present new analysis. NPOV means that when the sources are fairly presented, the reader can decide.
If an NPOV article can not be created, then I propose the article should probably be deleted; because, the proposed redirect targets are off base to what sources present for the term.
If the common sense of the Wikipedia community will prevail, the article can be made in NPOV state with educational content, and expanded with the proposed sources and as new sources arrive. In this example, it is possible to write a NPOV article, without original research.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
I am concerned that V is biased against religious interpretations of the term being presented in the article.
- 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=Purpose redirected}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
There was an RFC, a 3PO and a Wikiquette clarification.
- How do you think we can help?
Help interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers.
Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Purpose redirected discussion
- That was not a "quick explanation", nor have you noted that that the previous RFC, 3PO and Wikiquette clarification went against your position. Further, you were asked several times to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards, such as RS, NPOV, or OR. What it seems you are doing here, is continuing your own personal dispute rather than seeking to resolve it. On Talk:Purpose you were presented with multiple avenues for resolving this, from multiple editors and you refused to accept all of them. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry you are expressly incorrect. The editor who contributed the 3PO advised me to come here [11]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please rewrite your complaint up above and summarize it per the instructions? It's too long, and it is basically unreadable, not to mention bordering on science fiction (which I enjoy btw, so that doesn't bother me). I am not "expressly incorrect". The dispute on the talk page has to do with your refusal to accept consensus around RS, OR, and NPOV issues. That's why those noticeboards are more relevant. You even acknowledge this when you requested help "interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers". That's what those relevant noticeboards are for. However, you don't seem interested in resolving this, as you're trying to make this about editors rather than editing. Tell you what, why don't you summarize the results of the previous redirects, the RFC, the 3PO, and the Wikiquette clarification. That way we can get back on track and address the editing, not the editors. The more you focus on the facts (supported by diffs) rather than your opinion of the facts, the easier it will be to resolve this and move on. For example, you neglected to mention that there is consensus for a redirect (to multiple targets) and that you are the only editor who is against it. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Clerk comment: This dispute seems fairly large and revolves around one redirect. I think to effectively solve all the issues at hand that you request informal mediation, WP:MEDCAB. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please rewrite your complaint up above and summarize it per the instructions? It's too long, and it is basically unreadable, not to mention bordering on science fiction (which I enjoy btw, so that doesn't bother me). I am not "expressly incorrect". The dispute on the talk page has to do with your refusal to accept consensus around RS, OR, and NPOV issues. That's why those noticeboards are more relevant. You even acknowledge this when you requested help "interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers". That's what those relevant noticeboards are for. However, you don't seem interested in resolving this, as you're trying to make this about editors rather than editing. Tell you what, why don't you summarize the results of the previous redirects, the RFC, the 3PO, and the Wikiquette clarification. That way we can get back on track and address the editing, not the editors. The more you focus on the facts (supported by diffs) rather than your opinion of the facts, the easier it will be to resolve this and move on. For example, you neglected to mention that there is consensus for a redirect (to multiple targets) and that you are the only editor who is against it. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry you are expressly incorrect. The editor who contributed the 3PO advised me to come here [11]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will V agree? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cue I was going to suggest simply making purpose a disambiguation page, but then I saw this comment by R'n'B in the RfC that says the guidelines don't support doing that. On reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation again, it looks like making a broad-based article per WP:CONCEPTDAB might be the correct thing to do, but it doesn't look like there's any consensus to do this with the article as it stood pre-redirect. Veriditas, would you be able to cope with a broad-based article if it fulfilled all our content criteria, and you were satisfied that it wasn't a coatrack? And ZuluPapa5, I notice you mentioned a userspace draft in your overview - have you considered making this draft yourself and getting it up to an acceptable standard for inclusion? I think you would have a lot less objection to what you are proposing if you could provide a reasonable alternative to a redirect. Let me know what you both think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks WP:CONCEPTDAB is a good approach, I hadn't seen it before, but that is what was intuitively aimed to achieve. The article was totally re-drafted [12] to an acceptable standard before it was redirected, since then, additional sources have been found and a new WP:CONCEPTDAB standard too. It should be reworked again; however, this should be done in the main space, like Wikipedia was intended to be; where, folks collaborate together to draft articles to make a NPOV. User space article just don't make it so. As V seems to indicate, I can't make a NPOV article alone. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll leave this one up to Mr. Stradivarius, I'm busy with other threads at this time. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- V must have left this topic too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't left anything, ZuluPapa5. As someone who has consistently said that he will support anything that is reliably sourced and accurate, I would be happy to see you create a CONCEPTDAB in your user space and bring it to the attention of the community. Unfortunately, based on past results and our extensive discussion at Talk:Purpose, I am not optimistic about the outcome. If Mr. Stradivarius (what a wonderful user name) wants to act as a mentor/helper/whatever in this regard, his participation is welcomed and encouraged. I would invite him, however, to review our past discussions on this matter for a good summary of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is, there was a rewritten article after the RFC, then you redirected it. Following CONCEPTDAB, I would like to post and another re-written article in the main space. It's been very difficult to find a way to satisfy your interpretations of an acceptable article. You've said you don't believe there's an encyclopedia source to support a wikipedia article. I would be comfortable with a Peer Review, Editor Assistance, another RFC, even a AFD, after it's posted. Since you've asserted it's my original research and despite that there are over 14 sources covering this concept, how should we proceed? The community feedback would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see an RFC that came to a consensus about a redirect, with editors agreeing that your version of the page didn't work; it was reduced to a dicdef.[13] I also see you ignoring consensus and recreating the problematic material with absurd content like "Defining purpose is often relatively vague and almost meaningless; however, the concept is valuable and therfore retained."[14] I have no objection to you working closely with a mentor to create a new topic in your user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is, there was a rewritten article after the RFC, then you redirected it. Following CONCEPTDAB, I would like to post and another re-written article in the main space. It's been very difficult to find a way to satisfy your interpretations of an acceptable article. You've said you don't believe there's an encyclopedia source to support a wikipedia article. I would be comfortable with a Peer Review, Editor Assistance, another RFC, even a AFD, after it's posted. Since you've asserted it's my original research and despite that there are over 14 sources covering this concept, how should we proceed? The community feedback would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't left anything, ZuluPapa5. As someone who has consistently said that he will support anything that is reliably sourced and accurate, I would be happy to see you create a CONCEPTDAB in your user space and bring it to the attention of the community. Unfortunately, based on past results and our extensive discussion at Talk:Purpose, I am not optimistic about the outcome. If Mr. Stradivarius (what a wonderful user name) wants to act as a mentor/helper/whatever in this regard, his participation is welcomed and encouraged. I would invite him, however, to review our past discussions on this matter for a good summary of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- V must have left this topic too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll leave this one up to Mr. Stradivarius, I'm busy with other threads at this time. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks WP:CONCEPTDAB is a good approach, I hadn't seen it before, but that is what was intuitively aimed to achieve. The article was totally re-drafted [12] to an acceptable standard before it was redirected, since then, additional sources have been found and a new WP:CONCEPTDAB standard too. It should be reworked again; however, this should be done in the main space, like Wikipedia was intended to be; where, folks collaborate together to draft articles to make a NPOV. User space article just don't make it so. As V seems to indicate, I can't make a NPOV article alone. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cue I was going to suggest simply making purpose a disambiguation page, but then I saw this comment by R'n'B in the RfC that says the guidelines don't support doing that. On reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation again, it looks like making a broad-based article per WP:CONCEPTDAB might be the correct thing to do, but it doesn't look like there's any consensus to do this with the article as it stood pre-redirect. Veriditas, would you be able to cope with a broad-based article if it fulfilled all our content criteria, and you were satisfied that it wasn't a coatrack? And ZuluPapa5, I notice you mentioned a userspace draft in your overview - have you considered making this draft yourself and getting it up to an acceptable standard for inclusion? I think you would have a lot less objection to what you are proposing if you could provide a reasonable alternative to a redirect. Let me know what you both think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Zulu Papa, I don't think creating a concept dab page needs to be difficult at all, and I can help you with structuring it if you like. Neither does it need to be perfect; it just needs to be reasonably well-sourced and reasonably good at outlining the different encyclopaedic topics relating to the concept of "purpose". I think the basic problem is that so far we have been working from the outside in ("I have some material that discusses purpose in some form, let's put it in the purpose article"), rather than from the inside out ("What are the main aspects of the concept of "purpose" that should be outlined/disambiguated in an encyclopaedia article?"). Viriditas is right when he says that there are no sources to support a Wikipedia article - there simply aren't any modern sources that deal with "purpose" as an overarching concept, because it is so vague. There are only sources that talk about "purpose" in a specific context such as teleology in philosophy, goals in goal-setting theory, etc. The only reason that we can have an article about it at all is because of the WP:CONCEPTDAB guideline - these different encyclopaedic topics are linked together purely by the general meaning of the word "purpose" as defined in the dictionary. As such, I think a very good starting point would be to think of what Wikipedia articles we would include if we were making a traditional disambiguation page. Once we have a list of articles, we can then work out the best way to link them together in prose. The obvious ones to start with are Intention, Goal, and Teleology - can you think of any others? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- V, the material you quoted was referenced from the source and yet you dispute it? If anything, the source justifies the need to retain an article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mr. S.... thank you for the generous offer, this is an acceptable way to proceed. The sources indicate a relevance in the History of Science, Meaning of Life, Victor Frankl logotherapy, Purpose in life, Philosophy of Biology, Teleology#Teleology_and_science, Kant's Critique_of_Judgement#Teleology, Arturo Rosenblueth cybernetic and in linguistics Final clause. There are many Christian sources; however, I've ignored them for now. If you would like, we could work in the main space article? However, from V's previous offer to help, the pre-RFC version at User:Viriditas/Purpose is available for us to work. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think your comment here outlines the core of this dispute - as I see it, many of the articles you have listed above are outside the scope of the proposed purpose article. Let me explain. The articles I listed (intention, goal, and teleology) are about purpose as an abstract concept; however, most of the links you listed are about the purpose of a certain thing. To illustrate this, let's look at the difference between purpose in life (which redirects to teleology) and purpose of life (which redirects to meaning of life). Purpose in life is still about purpose as an abstract concept, albeit limited to a specific context. Purpose of life, however, is primarily a property of life, not of purpose, and is an extremely broad subject. You could write about almost anything under the heading of purpose of life, but it would be bound to turn into a discussion of life and morality rather than purpose per se.
Perhaps the difference is easiest to explain using a trivial example. (And this is going to be very trivial, so my apologies beforehand.) Let's compare purpose of pencil sharpeners with purpose in pencil sharpeners. It's obvious that the purpose of pencil sharpeners is to sharpen pencils, but I don't think anyone is about to pontificate on some abstract purpose contained in them. Almost everything has a purpose, but purpose as an abstract concept is much more limited. For these reasons, I think the proposed concept dab page needs to be limited to examples of "purpose in X", and should exclude all examples of "purpose of X". Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Difficult for me to say; because, it depends on how the sources treat the issue. Purpose is both a noun and a verb. To me, the noun would seem to follow the "in" interpretations, while the verb would be for "of". The verb form is a key issue; because, that's where the sources have discussed consciousness as a pre-requisit for an individual's purpose. Kant had a whole discourse on this, in that he advanced a philosophical thesis where there is no theological commitment required for an individual purpose. He saw it as inherent to the individual organism, not an external source. This thinking supported the theory of types in science. The sources are showing that "purpose" has a regulative action usage. Like a purposeful action to keep something on course toward a target. So purpose as a action verb will be significant to the article, and we might want to keep the "of" usages. There is significant controversy because individuals are inherently subjective, therefor it can be difficult to get agreement in individual's purposes, without creating some written document or organization. Really, NPOV might require us to include both the noun and verb forms. It's really a uniquely special verb, and that's where there is going to be meat for an article. In my personal opinion, its a special case of Subject Verb Subject compared to Subject Verb Object and SOV constructions. Hope I am making sense. Maybe we can section on the Noun and Verb usages, like a dictionary might?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think your comment here outlines the core of this dispute - as I see it, many of the articles you have listed above are outside the scope of the proposed purpose article. Let me explain. The articles I listed (intention, goal, and teleology) are about purpose as an abstract concept; however, most of the links you listed are about the purpose of a certain thing. To illustrate this, let's look at the difference between purpose in life (which redirects to teleology) and purpose of life (which redirects to meaning of life). Purpose in life is still about purpose as an abstract concept, albeit limited to a specific context. Purpose of life, however, is primarily a property of life, not of purpose, and is an extremely broad subject. You could write about almost anything under the heading of purpose of life, but it would be bound to turn into a discussion of life and morality rather than purpose per se.
Mormons
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The information I've added is factual, objective and respectful. The article states that the Book of Mormon is based upon the Bible. The information I've added identifies contradictions to that statement. The information cites verifiable sources as defined by wikipedia (see Below). While of a differing point of view, the added material immediately follows the section Culture and Practices, and discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion.
I have exchanged comments on the talk page of Mormons
Users involved
- Who is involved in the 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=Mormons}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Have discussed on the Talk page. I have also explained my reason for posting when I added comments
- How do you think we can help?
While of a differing point of view, the material I've added to this page discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion.
Bilbobag (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Mormons discussion
My name was mentioned so I suppose I'll comment here. My main problem with the edit in question is that (in my opinion) it doesn't belong in a general article about Mormons. The article's focus is mainly on the Mormons as a people: their history, their unique culture, some of their unique practices and beliefs, etc. The edit, however seemed to be concerned mainly with pointing out doctrinal inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, effectively using the article as a coat rack for an anti-Book of Mormon screed. Also, as other editors have pointed out, there seem to be copyright problems with the source, which appears to be self-published. I personally don't see the discussion as needing a formal dispute resolution quite yet. The discussion on the talk page isn't even a day old. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- First this wasn't meant to be, and I tried to go out of my way to make sure this inclusion wasn't an "anti-Book of Mormon Screed'. As Adjwilley points out the Mormon page discusses "some of their (Mormon's) unique practices and beliefs". Many of those beliefs are based upon the Book of Mormon, which is listed on the page as a "companion to the Bible". I was simply pointing out that as a "companion" text, there are factual differences.
- As to the copyright issue, I have explict permission from a recognized source to use their material. However to avoid any contrversey, I could re-write the article using only wording from the Book of Mormon and the Bible - both of which are in the public domain.
- Lastly, a review of the history of the page shows that any factual material that has been added, in the past 5 months, that has a differing point of view, or that isn't flattering to Mormons gets removed; Some examples are:
- 04:26, 7 February 2012 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) (81,424 bytes) (→Terminology: I think it's best to sidestep the history of the word "Mormon" for now.
- 18:29, 1 February 2012 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) (78,971 bytes) (→Groups within Mormonism: removing LGBT and Utah Mormons from Groups section.)
- 16:56, 1 February 2012 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) (78,816 bytes) (→Groups within Mormonism: Removing Black and International Mormons from the Groups section (moved to History in previous edit)) (undo)
- 02:57, 1 February 2012 Live Light (talk | contribs) (78,970 bytes) (→Beliefs: ALL belief systems seem strange to someone in this modernized world. This tells us nothing.) (undo)
- 03:19, 26 October 2011 LittleOldManRetired (talk | contribs) (65,739 bytes) (→Beliefs: omitted 2 addn Bible texts for comparison, these 5 texts have been ironically used both for and against the revelation of Joseph Smith, depending on who is interpreting them.) (undo)
Bilbobag (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Woah, hang on there. These edit summaries are out of context. For the two edits to the Groups section (LGBT, Utah, Black, and International) I was simply moving the material to other locations in the article; nothing was deleted. The Terminology edit was a minor edit that I made, related to when Mormons were first called Mormons, and a technical inaccuracy about the name of the church (lower case d with a hyphen). Live Light's edit was reverted I think, and I don't remember exactly what LittleOldManRetired's edit did. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue Bilbobag, sorry, but we can't include your material in Wikipedia as it is. Regardless of whether it is "for" or "against" Mormons, it breaks a number of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
- The copyright problems outlined by TransporterMan on the talk page
- It reads like an essay trying to advance a point of view, rather than being neutral and attributing significant points of view to their authors
- The sources it is based on appear to be either primary sources (the Bible and the Book of Mormon) or self-published sources (Fulton County Gospel News and Apologetics Press), rather than the reliable, secondary sources that Wikipedia usually requires (note that WP:PRIMARY does list some exceptions, but they don't seem to apply here)
- It doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the article - a better place to put material of this type (but re-written to reflect the points above) may be Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Criticism of the Book of Mormon, as 72Dino suggested on the talk page
I'm sorry that you have experienced difficulties in getting your edits accepted to the Mormons article, but I think that if you accept the points above then you will experience a lot less frustration in your editing. Some further questions you might want to ask yourself in determining what material may be suitable are "Who are the major mainstream academic scholars that have contributed to discussions on the Book of Mormon?", "Are their arguments already covered in any Wikipedia articles?", and "How can I edit the relevant Wikipedia articles to better reflect the views on the Book of Mormon present in the academic literature?" Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great response and comments. I Appreciate it.
- Two questions. 1) Since the bible has more printed copies than any book ever, and arguably is the most "popular" (not my phrase, but is commonly referred to as), I don't understand how it's not acceptable, especially if I'm quoting a section from it. It would appear to me to be the same as stating that Paris is the capital of France?
- 2) Understand comment about not writing/adding what would be perceived as an attack piece, and honestly that's not my intent. I thought that each item in Wikipedia was to present ALL data about the subject, whether controversial or not. The Mormons contains section on "Beliefs" and "Culture and Practices" In these articles it's stated that the Bible and Book of Mormon are "companion" pieces. I'm not suggesting they aren't, but simply that there are differences, as put forth by numerous publications/authors. In my mind I think removing my additions presents only one side of the position about Mormon beliefs. Removing anything that presents a differing point of view is somewhat analgous to the Church of Scientology issue on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia's comments that "The Church of Scientology has long had a controversial history on the Internet, and has initiated campaigns to manipulate material and remove information critical of the organization from the web." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia So my question is, shouldn't comments that are factual, unbiased, and presenting a differing point of view, be allowed?
- Thanks again for your insights and info, but would appreciate your thoughts on these questions. PS: I didn;t knwo where to reply so I also posted on your Message page - sorry for the duplication.Bilbobag (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- You may use the Bible as a primary source. Per Wikipedia policy on primary sources, this means that it can only be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". So we can use the Bible for simple, factual statements about its contents, but any analysis or interpretation of those facts needs to be cited to reliable, secondary sources. (Also, due to the many different versions of the Bible and the differences between them, things that seem simple and factual may actually be problematic - a great deal of scholarly literature has been written on the subject.) I see that you have attempted to use secondary sources in your version to back up your analyses, but I'm afraid these sources don't count as reliable per Wikipedia guidelines. You really need to be using sources by respected scholars published by mainstream publishers or in mainstream journals. As for your second point, you need to realise that the Mormons article is about a fundamentally different subject than the one you are writing about. No matter what you think of the neutrality of the original article, it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to add material that is not directly related to it. Put bluntly, if you want to talk about differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you need to edit other articles, not this one. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Cahokia
Closed discussion |
---|
Inter-Services Intelligence
- Inter-Services Intelligence (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?
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[1] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[2] Pakistan denies all such claims.[3][4][5] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[6] The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[7][8] Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.[7]The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[9] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[10]
I added this, it was removed. I want to put it back.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
The content was reverted out and in the ensuing discussion on the talk page it has been claimed the text has NPOV problems. I do not see any. An RFC was tried but no interest has been shown. I posted on the NPOV board and agin, no interest has been shown. So I guess I have to ry here now.
- 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=Inter-Services Intelligence}} --~~~~
in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Talk page, RFC posted on NPOV board.
- How do you think we can help?
Some extra input is needed.
Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Inter-Services Intelligence discussion
It will be extremely hard for us to offer any opinions, as the section you have referred to are referenced to books. Are you able to link to online versions of these books, alternatively scan the relevant pages and send them to my email address? cro0016gmail.com. Thanks, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- [15][16][17][18] Links to online versions of the books in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to the RfC discussion, one of the issues seems to be whether Wikipedia can describe ISI's support for Kashmiri "pro-freedom groups" or "separatists" (Mar4d) as "terrorist and religious extremist groups" (Darkness Shines). Users are pointing to WP:TERRORIST and WP:OR on either side. Shrigley (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- When a nation state founds & supports groups for use in a proxy war then they are far from "freedom fighters" I also toned down the text so the groups in question are no longer called terrorists directly. However I will not misrepresent the situation, the first source used says basically what I have written and it is an accurate statement when you look into the ISI activities over the years. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but all I see with those books are references to ISI. I'm looking for passages from the book. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you unable to click on the page number referenced? If not I can copy and paste full quotes later on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, that does work. Do we have Wikipedia articles on the authors of the first book? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- No idea, this is one of the editors of the first book[19] He wrote the chapter being quoted from also. this is the second editor[20] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but all I see with those books are references to ISI. I'm looking for passages from the book. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- When a nation state founds & supports groups for use in a proxy war then they are far from "freedom fighters" I also toned down the text so the groups in question are no longer called terrorists directly. However I will not misrepresent the situation, the first source used says basically what I have written and it is an accurate statement when you look into the ISI activities over the years. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
- University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (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?
The user Mesconsing added the academic boosterism tag to the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire article. He also made or suggested several helpful edits. However, I felt that the article was disinterested and encyclopedic, not worthy of the academic boosterism tag. A small dispute followed, and eventually Mesconsing accused me of "wikilawerying." I then moved our conversations (which took place on both our user talk pages) to the university's talk page.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Mesconsing (talk · contribs)
- 88guy88 (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=University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire}} --~~~~
in a new section 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 attempted to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation. Mesconsing replied by accusing me of wikilawering. At that point, I decided that an admin should get involved. However, after checking out the dispute resolution guidelines, I felt I should post here first.
- How do you think we can help?
I would like to have a third party look at the article (specifically, the introduction and reputation sections) and advise both myself and Mesconsing on the proper way to resolve our dispute. I would also like to make sure the dispute doesn't "blow up" with the parties involved assuming bad faith -- accusations of "wikilawyering," etc.
88guy88 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire discussion
As your residential Eau Claire mediator (not a UWEC alumni), please do not accuse one another of wikilawyering. It fosters the totally wrong kind of attitude between editors. Consider:
4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves. [88guy88]
- Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited. [Mesconsing]
5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked. [88guy88]
- Again, please stop wikilawyering. Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for helping edit this article. 88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is clear as day to most editors. Content wise, Mesconsing is completely right. Conduct wise, 88guy88 gets it.
Self-published sources, especially when they're promoting a positive image, are almost always wrong to use. Accusing another editor of wikilawyering (twice in one reply to one post, so how could it happen "again"? Seriously, that's a little unfair) is also almost always wrong to do. It seems like an out-of-hand dismissal, and doesn't promote reasoned argument.
So: Content, advantage Mesconsing. Conduct, advantage 88guy88. Nobody wins. Just my 2c. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. My underlying concern with all of this is not so much related to the sources used as it is to the "academic boosterism" tag. I still feel the aricle is disinterested. The "reputation" section of the article currently reads:
In 2012, U.S. News and World Report ranked UW-Eau Claire as the 32nd best Midwestern university out of 146 public and private colleges and as the 5th best university when only public colleges are considered.[11] Eau Claire is categorized as a "tier 1" institution, and is classified as "more selective," one step away from the magazine's highest category, "most selective."[12] The magazine also named UW-Eau Claire the fourth best school in the Midwest in terms of undergraduate teaching.[13]
The Princeton Review has named Eau Claire a "Best Value College" (one of 50 such public campuses in the country) and a "Best Midwestern College."[14] The magazine described the school as a "challenging, midsize state university that offers an exceptional and very affordable education" and said that "in terms of its array of majors and minors, Eau Claire compares favorably with much larger schools. As one example, more than 700 students are involved directly in faculty research — an honor reserved for graduate students at most universities."[15] The publication added that "one of the more impressive aspects of the university is its inexpensiveness in relation to the quality of education being offered."[16] The Princeton Review also included Eau Claire in its list of the 311 most environmentally friendly campuses in the United States.[17]
In their list of the "100 Best Values in Public Colleges," Kiplinger's Personal Finance has ranked Eau Claire as the 67th best value for in-state students and as the 64th best value for out-of-state students. According to the publication, the "rankings are based on academic quality, overall costs and financial aid availability."[18][19]
The university is one of four undergraduate institutions in the United States to have four or more Dreyfus teacher scholars on the faculty[12] and was among the 141 public and private colleges, universities and professional schools named in the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service.[20] The Templeton Foundation included the university in its list of colleges that "encourage character development."[21]
UW-Eau Claire sends more students abroad than any other master's level institution in Wisconsin, and it ranks 10th nationally among all master's schools in the number of students who study abroad.[22]
I think that this section is disinterested and fact based. If, for instance, the article included phrases like, "Eau Claire's quality is reflected by its rankings in..." or "Eau Claire's value is made evident by...", the boosterism tag would be completely appropriate. However, the article simply reports uncontroversial and relevent information. Perhaps we could switch the academic boosterism tag to some sort of "inappropiate sources used" tag.
Thanks for the help. 88guy88 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussion |
---|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (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?
In the section labelled Criticism and Controversy on this page I am trying to include reference to a recent documentary film 8: The Mormon Proposition which the LA Times called "An outstanding and urgent example of the investigative documentary". This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights. How could it possibly be deemed inappropriate to include it under a section labelled Criticism and controversy?
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
This section appears to be very heavily censored by Mormons.
- 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=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} --~~~~
in a new section 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'm being ignored on the talk page.
- How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure? I'm new to this. How can you help? I add it - they delete it. Who decides if it is appropriate or not?
Light Defender (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion
"This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights". Um, no. Wikipedia doesn't deal in 'indictments', scorching or otherwise - this isn't a court of law. I suggest you start again, with a clear statement of what the documentary is being cited for, and with diffs indicating any objections to such citation. We aren't going to decide here whether Mormonism is right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant, and neither are we going to make a similar decision regarding critics of Mormonism. Instead, we trying to write an encyclopaedia - and if there is a dispute regarding content, it helps to know what this is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have also added an explanation on talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explaining why I oppose adding a section "Criticism and Controversy" on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Curb Chain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Santorum vs santorum
Closed discussion |
---|
- ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80. ISBN 978-8129709981.
- ^ Green, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973345-3.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ The Independent. London http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html.
{{cite news}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html
- ^ King, Laura (2009-01-07). "Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks". Los Angeles Times.
- ^ Sisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 978-0415477055.
- ^ a b Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594.
- ^ Palmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196. ISBN 978-0742536036.
- ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84. ISBN 978-8129709981.
- ^ Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 600. ISBN 978-0-415-41157-8.
- ^ http://www.uwec.edu/newsreleases/11/sept/0913USNews.htm
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire | Overall Rankings | Best College | US News". Colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
- ^ Princeton Review Names UW-Eau Claire One of Top 100 'Best Value' Public Universities in Nation. Uwec.edu. Retrieved on 2011-01-26.
- ^ http://www.uwec.edu/newsreleases/09/jan/0108PrincetonReview09.htm
- ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/best-value-colleges?loc=interstitialskip
- ^ "Princeton Review includes UW-Eau Claire on list of green campuses". Uwec.edu. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
- ^ Kiplinger's again names UW-Eau Claire a best value college. Uwec.edu. Retrieved on 2011-01-26.
- ^ http://www.uwec.edu/newsreleases/10/jan/0105Kiplingers.htm
- ^ UW-Eau Claire University Bulletin. Uwec.edu. Retrieved on 2011-01-26.
- ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=1gJyPzLAx2cC&pg=PA108&dq=university+of+wisconsin+at+eau+claire+eau+claire&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3voiT7OPFqqu0AGd3tDlCA&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBTge#v=onepage&q=university%20of%20wisconsin%20at%20eau%20claire%20eau%20claire&f=false
- ^ http://www.uwec.edu/newsreleases/11/nov/1122OpenDoors.htm