Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin Fixing title and pagelinks |
|||
Line 586: | Line 586: | ||
==== Summary of dispute by QuackGuru ==== |
==== Summary of dispute by QuackGuru ==== |
||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
||
''With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[8] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[8] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]'' |
|||
The text in the [[WP:LEDE]] is a summary of [[Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research]] in accordance with Wikipedia's [[WP:ASSERT]]. Stating "TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is [[WP:OR]] and does not properly summarise the body. The source for protoscience was written by the trade. [[WP:FRINGE]] demands we should use independent sources for controversial topics. [[User:QuackGuru|<font color="Red">QuackGuru</font>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color:red">talk</span>]]) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by Herbxue ==== |
==== Summary of dispute by Herbxue ==== |
Revision as of 04:32, 30 April 2014
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) | 3 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours |
Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours |
Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours |
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 6 hours |
Aidi | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 2 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 10 hours | Traumnovelle (t) | 2 days, 7 hours |
Maratha Confederacy | New | Mohammad Umar Ali (t) | 22 hours | None | n/a | Timtrent (t) | 5 hours |
Elissa Slotkin | New | Andrew.robbins (t) | 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Heracletus (talk · contribs)
- Qwerty786 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
We disagree with User:Qwerty786 over the article of this Assembly and the article of Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo. The Assembly mentioned is the assembly of the association mentioned. Initially, this association was backed by Serbian and not recognised by Kosovo Albanian authorities. Then, the two governments agreed on such an association in the Brussels Agreement (2013) which would have the exact structure as the previous one. For me this means that the new envisaged association and assembly are clear continuations of the old ones. Furthermore, the Agreement mentions that Serbian-backed courts and police in North Kosovo will be integrated in the Pristina organised judicial and police structures. The exact details of implementation are still under negotiation. Although the Agreement is intended as a compromise and tries to be as neutral as possible mentioning integrations and mergings, User:Qwerty786 keeps repeating that "Serbian structures are abolished" and thus proceeded to remove referenced material from these pages about the previous institutions, association/community and assembly. Even if one agrees that the previous institutions were abolished and not integrated or merged, even though this is contrary to the language of the Agreement, this does not mean that we should vanish all information about the past institutions from wikipedia. Even though, I kept saying this and making the articles representing the new institutions while also mentioning the past ones, and even though the article is under the ArbCom's Balkans decision, the user reverted thrice the page of the Assembly, in order to make the according to him "abolished" past institutions vanish, clearly pushing a POV. It was clearly mentioned that these past institutions were supported by Serbia and not by Kosovo Albanians or UNMIK and that when negotiations are over the new ones will take over. We kept talking about this in our talk pages, but to no avail.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried talking to the user on his talk page, explaining what content I wanted to change and why. I did some changes that I think were clearly NPOV, supporting neither side. I tried explaining why his changes were POV. I made a section on the articles' talk pages. I tried asking another user who reverted to provide an opinion on ways to resolve, but he just refused. And, I also tried to get more opinions by posting on wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo.
How do you think we can help?
Obviously, an Agreement that would dissolve something and set something almost exactly similar, would mean that one is the continuation of the other, for example the EU and the European Communities. However, this Agreement does not explicitly dissolve anything, it is formulated to integrate, merge & conciliate, being a compromise. Even if it did dissolve, this is no reason to remove again and again referenced material just because something may no longer exist. I want to reach a NPOV consensus.
Summary of dispute by Qwerty786
I am posting the facts of this entire situation. The Brussels deal is about abolishing all Government of Serbia institutions in Kosovo. This of course includes the Assembly of Municipalities that was formed on the basis of Serbia organized elections in 2008. Just like the police and court systems have been or in the process of being abolished so will all the structures formed from the illegal parallel elections of 2008. The new Assembly of Serbian municipalities can't have the same structure was the assembly formed in 2008 as the result of those elections. The 2013 elections will result in a new assembly that really has nothing to do with the assembly formed as a result of the elections of 2008. Just because two institutions have the word assembly attached doesn't mean they are related in any way. The assembly that will be created soon as a result of Serbs voting in Kosovo run elections doesn't cover the same territory have the same voting methods and more. They are of no relation. Heracletus is trying to push a POV that is not grounded in the reality of what is going on and seems intent on saying even what Belgrade and Serbia isn't saying! Serbia agreed to the Bruseels deal which abolished all Serbian government institutions in Kosovo which includes the now inactive assembly that will very shortly be formally abolished.
http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2008&mm=06&dd=28&nav_id=51459
This article is very important because it talks about 26 municipalities. How can the structure be the same if it is going from 26 to 5 or 6? The structure used is radically different. The municipalities used in the Serbia organized elections don't even exist now in Kosovo law.
The issues of the use of the term Metohija was abolished in Brussels! All you have to do is read the Brussels agreement. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities discussion
Can both of you clearly state the outcome that would satisfy you? The statements above are clear about why you each feel differently, but it's hard for me to understand what you want to occur. Homunq (࿓) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would like the content that was removed to be included. Even if Qwerty786 believes the two structures (old and new) are different, he removed well-sourced material and I find this NPOV and an attempt to make history vanish. By saying that I want this content to be included, I would not be against separating the articles into new and old, but as one can easily see the two articles to be produced from this would be quite short and inevitably they would be merged at some point.
- Apart from this, I do not know how we could reach a settlement, however, if Qwerty786's basis of discussion is that the previous structure was illegal as he/she wrote above and so on. It is obvious that yes, indeed, the Serbian side considered the Albanian structures illegal, and still kinda does, and the Albanian side considered the Serbian structures illegal and still kinda does. I really don't understand how agreeing with a single side's view cannot be considered POV.
- Therefore, starting from such a position of Qwerty786, it is really difficult to argue with him/her how something that may have changed or even ceased to exist but is highly related to something else (or may have transformed into that something else) and is quite notable, should not just vanish from the article, but stay there. My basis argument would be that the European Communities/European Community may not exist anymore, but they still can be found in the European Union article, even though they had a different structure, different legal standing (the EU now has a legal personality, being able to sign treaties on its own, which was not the case with the EC and so on) and general differences.
- I had tried to formulate the articles in a NPOV way. Perhaps, it was my own POV, however, I do not know where to seek adequate and binding mediation and not escalate into an edit war. Heracletus (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I'd like to hear Qwerty786's answer before I ask further questions. (Note: I'm not an official volunteer here; just a passerby trying to help.) Homunq (࿓) 23:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to compromise but the only thing that makes sense is a total reversion of the article "Asembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" back to when it was "Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" and then when it is finally formed and put into operation have an article about the " Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities" or have that be a subset of an article about the "Community of Serbian municipalities" titled "assembly". The major problem is Heracletus believing based on only their own POV that because two entities have the title "assembly" that they are in any way related. They are not related in any way. The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija was formed from illegal Serbia run parallel elections in 2008 and like the Serbia run police and legal system which are going to be abolished means of course anything from the 2008 elections will be abolished. You really have to have a neutral view of the Brussels deal and not see it as any kind of continuation of Serbia autonomy over Kosovo to get things right in this situation. Heracletus is completely wrong in everything they were posting in the The Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija article and I wrongly retitled the page because they were strident in their belief that the Brussels deal was continuing the "Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija" when in fact it was abolishing all Serbia government institutions and creating a new assembly of Serbian municipalities based on strictly Kosovo law and election law and Municipal law. There is major confusion by Heracletus based on two totally different and unrelated institutions sharing the name "assembly." They have no relation. They basis of elections is totally different. There must be a creation of two articles or an "assembly" section of the Community of Serbian municipalities article. All Serbia government institutions in Kosovo are being abolished and there are no parallel institutions including the word "Metohija". Qwerty786 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Let me put something into perspective, in the text of the Brussels Agreement (2013) the word abolish or any derivatives are simply not mentioned. The text talks about integration and merging (of the police and judicial systems). For the community of Serbian municipalities, it just says that there will be one. There already was one, it just came out of elections you define as illegal (being POV - because they were organised by the Serbians and considered illegal by the Albanians in Kosovo), and the new one is envisaged to come out of the latest elections organised by the Albanian Kosovo government and legitimised also by the Serbian government. However, most of the exact implementation is still under negotiation.
- The text of the preliminary Agreement that we do have reads:
- 1. There will be an Association/Community of Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo. Membership will be open to any other municipality provided the members are in agreement.
- 2. The Community/Association will be created by statute. Its dissolution shall only take place by a decision of the participating municipalities. Legal guarantees will be provided by applicable law and constitutional law (including the 2/3 majority rule).
- 3. The structures of the Association/Community will be established on the same basis as the existing statute of the Association of Kosovo municipalities e.g. President, vice President, Assembly, Council.
- 4. In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning.
- 5. The Association/Community will exercise other additional competences as may be delegated by the central authorities.
- 6. The Community/Association shall have a representative role to the central authorities and will have a seat in the communities’ consultative council for this purpose. In the pursuit of this role a monitoring function is envisaged.
- 7. There shall be one police force in Kosovo called the Kosovo Police. All police in northern Kosovo shall be integrated in the Kosovo Police framework. Salaries will be only from the KP.
- 8. Members of other Serbian security structures will be offered a place in equivalent Kosovo structures.
- 9. There shall be a Police Regional Commander for the four northern Serb majority municipalities (Northern Mitrovica, Zvecan, Zubin Potok and Leposavic). The Commander of this region shall be a Kosovo Serb nominated by the Ministry of Interior from a list provided by the four mayors on behalf of the Community/Association. The composition of the KP in the north will reflect the ethnic composition of the population of the four municipalities. (There will be another Regional Commander for the municipalities of Mitrovica South, Skenderaj and Vushtrri). The regional commander of the four northern municipalities will cooperate with other regional commanders.
- 10. The judicial authorities will be integrated and operate within the Kosovo legal framework. The Appellate Court in Pristina will establish a panel composed of a majority of K/S judges to deal with all Kosovo Serb majority municipalities.
- 11. A division of this Appellate Court, composed both by administrative staff and judges will sit permanently in northern Mitrovica (Mitrovica District Court). Each panel of the above division will be composed by a majority of K/S judges. Appropriate judges will sit dependant on the nature of the case involved.
- 12. Municipal elections shall be organized in the northern municipalities in 2013 with the facilitation of the OSCE in accordance with Kosovo law and international standards.
- 13. Discussions on Energy and Telecoms will be intensified by the two sides and completed by June 15.
- 14. It is agreed that neither side will block, or encourage others to block, the other side’s progress in their respective EU path.
- 15. An implementation committee will be established by the two sides, with the facilitation of the EU.
- Furthermore, you keep addressing issues such as whether the envisaged communal association will contain the term Metohija (which is contained in the Serbian (official) name of the region "Kosovo and Metohija" but not in the Albanian name of "Kosovo") which a. I did not argue for or against, b. have no basis on the Agreement or any source, and, c. only serve a particular POV.
- My simple point is that the new communal association comes from the same Agreement that you claim abolishes the old one, is voted by the same people (residents of the Serb-majority municipalities in Kosovo) as the old one, has the same structure (incl. the assembly) as the old one and basically does the same thing (as in that it represents the people of these municipalities). However, the only differences are: that the new one is recognised by Albanians, too, that it come out of elections recognised by Albanians, too, and that it does not have broad legislative and executive powers as the old one, but rather has "full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning". In my eyes this is a compromise in the form that the Serbian-majority communal association was recognised by the Albanian side in return for it exercising no legislative power against the central parliament (which is controlled by the Albanians).
- These points of differences and similarities were explicitly stated in the content that you removed.
- I also counted two times a form of the verb "integrate" (one for the police and one for the judicial system) and no time the verb "abolish" being on the Agreement. Heracletus (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- All you are posting are from a POV that says the old assembly is a continuation of the old one. Just like there is no word abolish there is no work continuation. There is the word integrate with police and judiciary but it is explicit that it is under Kosovo law and not Serbia law and therefore the Serbia role is abolished where it existed before. Because the elections conducted by Serbia have always been considered invalid and illegitimate none of it is even mentioned! Serbia even has just erased the whole concept unlike the Judiciary and Police where they are abolishing their powers and all police and court people are being integrated under Kosovo law. You keep posting all the Brussels Agreement but the Brussels Agreement supports my neutral POV and you are trying to fit into a POV that's not even Serbia's POV. I don't even know what POV you are pushing? Qwerty786 (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're being so neutral on insisting to call the elections organised by Serbia in 2008 "illegal", "invalid and illegimate" and drawing conclusions about the position of Serbia or anyone else which are not there, that I do consider turning myself in for WP:ARBMAC more and more as time goes by. You kept insisting that the police and justice system would just be abolished, in fact that it has already been abolished, now you finally agree that it is to be integrated. Perhaps, if I post the whole text another 15 times, you may stop coming up with your own conclusions over anyone's position and read what it says. Heracletus (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice
Old closing notice
|
---|
If Qwerty786 doesn't respond within 24 hours, myself or another volunteer will close the case as lack of participation. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Reaper's process
Hi, I'm a volunteer at DRN that gets called in to help clean up threads that have laid for far too long on the DRN board without any forward progress. I'd like to recap to make sure that I understand the positionsHeracletus and Qwerty786...
- @Heracletus: Your viewpoint is that the content you inserted in this diff should remain in the article?
- @Qwerty786: Your view is that the content removed in these diffs should not be included?
A simple Yes/No is all that is needed. I don't want to see long paragraphs of railing against each other/copy-pastes. As a reminder, the subject area is under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBMAC), so I'm only going to say this once... Adhere to the letter and spirit of all Wiki Policies/Guidelines/Best Practices unless you want a ArbEnforcement action decide the dispute for you'. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and no. My viewpoint is that most of the content in that difference should remain in the article, and that the numbers of 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (in the Serbian sense of municipalities, which is second-degree local administration, under districts, and could even mean single towns or villages - the Kosovo Albanian municipalities are first-degree local administration and different) are undisputed for the previous assembly. For the new one, these numbers could be WP:Crystal, until we actually find a source.
- However, I see the same issues here and here, while also I have to note that our dispute is also over this: [1], which I claim should be excluded/replaced, because it is not found in the source used. Strictly speaking, from the Agreement, the new Community "will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning", and it is not specified what this means. Implicitly I would agree it probably means no legislative power and very reduced executive one and only on those issues. Judicial power the Serbian Community never had, just the justice system was under the Serbian justice system and now it will be integrated in the Kosovo one. However, someone below invoked WP:Crystal, so who am I to define if broad overview means no legislative power? What should be written is what is in the agreement, then, art. 4: "In accordance with the competences given by the European Charter of Local Self Government and Kosovo law the participating municipalities shall be entitled to cooperate in exercising their powers through the Community/Association collectively. The Association/Community will have full overview of the areas of economic development, education, health, urban and rural planning." Heracletus (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also a volunteer at DRN. I see that prior to the Brussels agreement that this article was entitled Community Assembly of Kosovo and Metohija and is now entitled Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities. I have a couple questuions"
- There is a Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Would delay in editing, for say eight months until the new Assembly is up and running with available reliable sources help resolve this dispute?--Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not create an article about "Assembly of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo" just because of this reason! I did not know about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball but because there were no concrete sources I did not create a new article. The Brussels agreement is very clear in making Kosovo the only law of Kosovo and because the 2008 elections were under Belgrade law and never recognized by Kosovo or EULEX or anyone outside Serbia it made sense that the Assembly of the Serbian Municiaplities of Kosovo and Metohija were abolished just like the Serbian police and judiciary which also operated under Serbia law. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Two articles would basically mean splitting one small article into two even smaller, which would have to be interconnected and one could move to merge, if it is agreed that they are related as I suggest, and I guess another one would move to propose for deletion on the grounds of being "abolished". So, my answer would be "perhaps", as it depends on how the split articles are connected, and such a decision would also greatly affect the Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo article as well... If one could only make Wikiprojects Serbia and/or Kosovo express some opinions on these issues, we could have solved this. However, the base of the dispute is not splitting, it's removing stuff, because it was "abolished".
- I wouldn't think WP:Crystal applies as there is an Agreement explicitly on both the (new) Community and its Assembly, and lots of RS articles on them. Details are under negotiation, indeed. The old community and its assembly have existed, so can't call WP:Crystal on them. Actually, the way the article was formulated, apart from the details which I mention above, such as the number of deputies and municipalities of the new Assembly, I cannot see what else you may question under WP:Crystal.
- I could reformulate the passage about the number of deputies and municipalities into something like this: "The old assembly had 45 deputies from 26 municipalities (as defined by the Serbian government) and the new assembly is expected to have an unknown number of representatives from the same regions, which have a Serbian majority." Heracletus (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is not the same regions. I don't know where that is coming from. Under Serbia law and elections held in 2008 the regions are not the same under Kosovo law in 2013 and 2014. The same regions do not exist according to the laws of Serbia and Kosovo and how Kosovo is broken up into municipalities. You are not right in anything you are writing when it comes to that particular aspect. The government of Kosovo and government of Serbia have divided Kosovo differently. The elections under 2008 and 2013 are totally separate and have no connection. You are using the fact that the same word "assembly" is used when that word is the only thing that connects the two. The way the two are formulated are so radically different that they really can't be seen to be connected. Serbia has completely given up on viewing Kosovo as being under the Serbian division of municipalities and have accepted the way they were divided by the Kosovo government. I must suggest the people who are trying to resolve this look at the original article as it was before all the edits. It will be obvious that the assembly proposed and the one existed have no connection other than the word assembly. Qwerty786 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
David Camm
Closed discussion |
---|
Southern Poverty Law Center
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Mrdthree (talk · contribs)
- The_Four_Deuces (talk · contribs)
- Malik_Shabazz (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
argued. Read rules. INitially it was called an overlink but I think that might be resolved. Currently linking to antigovernment is being called WP:D.
How do you think we can help?
Is the antigovernment page a disambiguation page or a stub? Can I make the antigovernment page a disambiguation page? If antigovernment is a disambiguation page can I link to it from the Southern Poverty Law Center article? (does it violate WP:D)
Summary of dispute by Mrdthree
The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, a disambiguation page "lists articles associated with the same title". I'd say that it could be edited into a short article, and you should try it or at least let WP:Wikiproject Politics know about it. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a poor choice for disambiguation ... I suggest a link to Wiktionary where the term is defined. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I find it a poor definition. Or if it is meaningful then its a meaningless word; because it incorporates everything from opposition politics to open rebellion and anarchism (socialist libertarianism). Plus the same could be said about a great many simpler words... say green Mrdthree (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- If we were to link it would be to "antigovernment patriot group", because that is the term they use. Similarly, we would not link "United States of America" to "United", "States" and "America." The linked article would then begin, "'Antigovernment patriot group"' is a term used by the SPLC to describe groups that...such as...." But that is unnecessary. Most readers understand what "anti" means, and that in this context the government they are anti is the U.S. government which they believe is run by traitors or even enemy foreigners and does not have legitimacy under the U.S. constitution, the supreme law of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I like your explanation much better than the present one. The present one doesnt actually state that. IT states that: The SPLC describes these groups as parts of an extremist Patriot Movement characterized by anti-government doctrines, conspiracy theories or opposition to the New World Order. This phrasing says it is the entire Patiot movement that is anti-government. However the Patriot Movement webpage makes no such claim. Mrdthree (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The_Four_Deuces
Summary of dispute by Malik_Shabazz
Southern Poverty Law Center discussion
(Note: I've consolidated two separate sections on this down to 1. Homunq (࿓) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
Are you still interested in pursuing this, given that the term is not currently used in the article? Homunq (࿓) 18:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I want to know: is antigovernment a stub or a disambiguation page? Mrdthree (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
48-hour closing notice
- This discussion appears rather stale. I am willing to help continue discussion if it would be useful; if no further activity occurs in this thread, I will close it in 48 hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would like a summary.
Right Sector
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Right Sector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Darouet (talk · contribs)
- Dervorguilla (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Right Sector is an ultranationalist and paramilitary political group that formed as a union of smaller far-right groups in Ukraine at the end of 2013. Its ideology, members or constituent groups have been described by some media and scholars as neo-fascist, an appellation not used by others, and contested by a few. The group traces its origins to the far-right Ukrainian nationalists who view themselves as inheritors of the controversial figure Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as opposed to other, more moderate Ukrainian nationalist parties.
I've presented newspaper articles (from Die Welt, The New York Times, The Nation, Le Monde Diplomatique, Haaretz, Time (magazine)) and scholarly opinions explaining their far-right politics, but Dervorguilla maintains that the sources I present are either mischaracterized, not reliable, not notable, or otherwise a violation of WP:DUE. I contest his characterization of each source and believe that the article is beginning to look like a self-description by Right Sector.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have discussed this extensively on Talk:Right Sector, on our own talk pages, and have tried an RfC, which gave mixed results but towards the end favored exclusion of the material. We've also talked about a dispute resolution.
How do you think we can help?
I think having a neutral, experienced editor to work with us to establish: 1) what the sources actually say, 2) how notable or reliable they are, and lastly 3) what their weight should be would be greatly appreciated. I think this is possible because we've both been cordial.
Summary of dispute by Dervorguilla
1. Let’s begin with the topmost material added by Darouet: “Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.”
The cited unsigned background analysis has been removed by the publisher from its searchable database. The newspaper does however quote a “well-known Ukrainian researcher” as calling the subject an organization of little “right-wing” groups and gangs. It calls the subject itself a “right-wing” group, a “nationalist” group, and an “ultranationalist” group. See Talk:Right Sector for a lengthier discussion.
2. Darouet started an RfC asking “Do major papers describe Right Sector as neo-Fascist?”. Collect responded “Some do and others don't. So what the Wikipedia best practice is - is to use that term or terms which cover the broad consensus of sources which would appear to be "Right Wing Nationalist".” A few days later Darouet added, in about 3½ hours, all this material:
- Die Welt reports that Right Sector formed from an association of right-wing and neo-fascist Ukrainian political factions.… Journalist Alec Luhn for The Nation wrote that "ultranationalists and neo-Nazis" from Right Sector and other groups took control…. Ishchenko wrote that "previously marginal neofascists from the militant Pravy Sektor" entered into negotiations…. Le Monde Diplomatique's Emmanuel Dreyfus writes that the presence of "neo-fascist groups such as Pravy Sector" in Maidan point to a crisis…. Haaretz has written that members of Right Sector used neo-Nazi symbols…. According to TIME magazine, Right Sector's ideology borders on fascism…. Columnist Conn Hallinan has written that the United States press has "downplayed the role" of Right Sector and other far-right groups, which some media and scholars label as "fascist."… Political Scientist Cas Mudde writes that Right Sector's constituent groups include "various neo-fascists and neo-Nazis" who formed alliances…. Political science professor Alexander Motyl by contrast writes that Right Sector is … not fascist.… Political Scientist Anton Shekhovstov writes that while "Right Sector has indeed a neo-Nazi fringe … the main group behind the Right Sector … is far from neo-Nazism…."
Lvivske or I had already presented our concerns about these items at Talk.
3. I believe Lvivske (talk) should be included in this discussion. Meanwhile some of the material added by Darouet can be removed without harm to the article.
___
[Supp. A]
Addressing Darouet’s comments that he’s ‘presented sources explaining the subject’s far-right politics’ and that I’ve ‘maintained they’re violations of WP:DUE’ —
I’ve been supporting his point that the subject has far-right politics. And I’ve never maintained (or implied) that the sources are violations of WP:DUE. Rather, I’ve maintained that particular sources are violations of PUBLICFIGURE, NEWSBLOG,
RSOPINION, or REDFLAG.
00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Right Sector discussion
- I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I'd be happy to assist in discussing this issue, but will wait until Dervorguilla responds before adding further comments. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've contacted User:Lvivske regarding this discussion. To start out with, I have one quick question for both editors: Under what circumstances would you be comfortable with references to fascism existing in this article? Any answer is fine; I just want to clarify what you're each looking to see in the article. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Theodore!; I don't see any problem with User:Lvivske participating. I think that we should include references to fascism as direct quotes or as paraphrasing from sources in the "history" section, where Right Sector's constituent groups are discussed, and in "ideology". I think that Right Sector's description as a neo-fascist organization (or the description of its ideology) should also be noted in the lead, with a qualification that some researchers, e.g. Shekhovstov, think that while some contributing groups as neo-fascist, the group as a whole is not. -Darouet (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Is there still a need for further discussion on this subject? If so, I am wondering whether we can agree to discuss the "fascism" allegations in the article, while indicating that these are allegations? E.g., we could say that (Insert source) has correlated the ideology of Right Sector to that of fascist groups, but this claim has been denied by (Insert other source). Or, alternatively, we could just say "(Right Sector has frequently been identified as neo-fascist/ultranationalist/etcetera", followed by as many sources as possible. What do you think? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Darouet and I appear to be making progress on our own now, Theodore! Thanks for your help. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dervorguilla, it would be helpful if you would explain these recent changes to the article here. -Darouet (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is there something in particular that′s wrong? --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Following your changes, the article went from having an ordered structure describing its formation, activities in Maidan, and then ideology, to now having a long incoherent ideology section with every statement from every source listed independently, without any flow of ideas, logic or history. -Darouet (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can restore and reorganize the content in the "Ideology: Descriptions in the press" section so it’s shorter and more coherent. And we can get some other editors to contribute too.
- We might as well limit the citations in the lead to what Wikipedia regards as the few truly mainstream news media (MSM).
- “Mainstream media (MSM) are those media disseminated via the largest distribution channels…. Media organizations such as CBS and the New York Times set the tone for other smaller news organizations … lacking the resources to do more individual research and coverage, [the] primary method being through the Associated Press….”
- --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Voting system
Closed discussion |
---|
Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Erpert (talk · contribs)
- Richhoncho (talk · contribs)
- Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
One user thinks in articles about songs, the article in question should be listed in both the SONGS and SINGLES categories. Two other users disagree with this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I was going to start a thread on Richhoncho's talk page about, but upon realizing Lil-unique1 already did that, I just added to that discussion.
How do you think we can help?
I think we can try to find a consensus on whether both categories need to be listed after all in all cases (personally, I only list both categories when the song was recorded and then released in different years). In addition, Richhoncho's definition of "single" appears to be original research (it isn't defined as such in the Single (music) article).
Summary of dispute by Richhoncho
There are only three key points here:-
- Epert objects to me applying the guideline WP:SONG#Categories and has been removing categories contra to that guideline and therefore against community wishes.
- There has been a long conversation on my talkpage where I have pointed out to Erpert if he wants to change the guideline, then he should take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. and not on my talkpage as I can only give my opinion - obviously I do not own the guideline (even though I thoroughly approve of it).
- Therefore dispute resolution was not the place to come but to WP:SONGS as already suggested and ignored by Erpert.--Richhoncho (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Lil-unique1
- Richhoncho undid my edits when I removed the song category from articles that were about singles. Personally, I feel like there isn't a definitive guideline and there's some half-baked discussions about the whole thing. I think I under Rich's point of view but it based on his own original research about the definition of a single is. Something which editors of music articles cannot agree on themselves. Its an issue that goes beyond the problem of categories to be honest. I respect Rich's edits but I think he's wrong to assume that he has a consensus for his point of view and I think its a bigger problem than this small dispute. IMO the infobox single and infobox song merged with different types e.g. "single", "promotional song" and "song". I really think its pointless classifying something as both a single and song when it cannot be a single without being song. The two are not mutually exclusive. I'll add that I said to Rich that I didn't want to push the issue because I felt like he didn't understand my POV and it was discussion that was way beyond either of us, that needed more editors to get involved and some kind of technical opinion tbh. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes) discussion
SN: Rich keeps mentioning WP:SONG when I think he really means to mention WP:NSONG (WP:SONG is a WikiProject). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No I emphatically mean WP:SONG. However, if you read WP:NSONG it starts "Songs and singles are..." which is the crux of my argument - they are not the same thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- As suggested above in the template. I have re-opened a new discussion on my talkpage regarding this matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need the same discussion going on in several different forums. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, it would probably be best if you didn't continue adding the categories in question while the dispute discussion is still active. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Which part of "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary." don't you understand? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also, it would probably be best if you didn't continue adding the categories in question while the dispute discussion is still active. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't need the same discussion going on in several different forums. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- As suggested above in the template. I have re-opened a new discussion on my talkpage regarding this matter. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Heartbleed
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, we have discussed this issue on the relevant talk page section already.
Location of dispute
- Heartbleed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Tutelary (talk · contribs)
- Chealer (talk · contribs)
- FenixFeather (talk · contribs)
- Pol098 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Chealer continues to add a request for reference tag in spite of a 3 person WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to leave it out. The source is none other than the company's official blog, describing themselves as vulnerable to the bug. WP:PRIMARY I think is pretty clear that this is sufficient.
Disruptively edits it back in:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartbleed&diff=606058468&oldid=606033583
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartbleed&diff=605941975&oldid=605927695
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartbleed&diff=605812738&oldid=605812135
He has also used a false edit summary in an attempt to avoid scrutiny:
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to make this user get the point via edit summaries, the talk page linking of policies, but none has worked. Even after all of this, he still edits it back in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartbleed&diff=606061358&oldid=606060758 (in spite of there being a 3 person consensus against him)
How do you think we can help?
I think that you people could make it calmly known to leave it out, to calmly explain WP:CONSENSUS as well as other policies that this user should just drop the issue.
Summary of dispute by Chealer
Summary of dispute by FenixFeather
Tutelary (talk · contribs) provides a pretty good summary. I examined the source and explained to Chealer on the article talk page why the Lastpass source is sufficient, but it does not seem to have worked. Only the Lastpass source is disputed, despite the use of similar primary sources on the rest of the page. There is also a refusal to accept that Lastpass is talking about their product when they say "Lastpass is vulnerable". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Pol098
The point at issue: there is a company called LastPass, and a product called LastPass Password Manager. Chealer (who disputes the reliability of the reference) says "What is missing is a source for the part of the paragraph stating that LastPass Password Manager was vulnerable", making a distinction between the company and the product. (S)he compares this to saying that if Microsoft (company) is affected, it doesn't support the statement that Microsoft Windows (one of many products) is affected).
The LastPass company Web site discusses whether "LastPass" is vulnerable. On that page they also give the description "LastPass (sic) is helping the world remember their passwords and better manage their online life. It's a browser-based password manager and form filler". Other pages on their site such as this one make it clear that they use "LastPass" and "LastPass Password Manager" interchangeably for the software. This would also apply if LastPass Co. had several products (software, services) all dependent on the same security techniques, unlike Microsoft - security flaws in Windows obviously don't relate, e.g., to their software development products such as Visual C. A more appropriate comparison would be with the Opera Web browser developed by Opera Software: a "security flaw in Opera" is, in my opinion, unambiguous.
Heartbleed discussion
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Where would this be taken if this is solely about user conduct? The user has had the dispute explained to him by three different editors, and still doesn't seem to get it. There is a 3 person consensus about the content in this. Tutelary (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Tutelary, there are a few options for conduct issues. You can file a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but only if the situation requires intervention form administration or you may begin an RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct where community input on the conduct can be discussed and a decision made by a wide consensus of editors.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wrote an essay for just this situation. It is at WP:1AM. Also, while I like to wait until everyone has commented before opening up a discussion about the dispute, discussions like this one -- about how best to approach the dispute as opposed to being about the dispute itself -- are fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Chealer has indicated (User talk:Chealer#Engage in WP:DRN) that he won't be participating, which of course he has every right to do. I am going to wait until he edits Wikipedia again and sees my message, and if he doesn't change his mind, I will give those who are participating detailed advice as to what to do next.
- In cases like this, I do my best to not take sides, saying things like "if you think that there has been misbehavior, do X" and "if you think you are being unfairly accused of misbehavior, do Y". It isn't my place to comment on whether an accusation of misbehavior has merit. As I said before, solving the content dispute often solves any (real or imagined) conduct issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear that Chealer is going to participate here, so I am going to wait 24 hours and then close this as failed. It may turn out that there are no further conflicts, but if there are (and without me passing judgement on any conduct issues), WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE is the best place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Intelligent design
Closed discussion |
---|
Traditional Chinese medicine
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Traditional Chinese medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Mallexikon (talk · contribs)
- QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
- Herbxue (talk · contribs)
- Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
- Jim1138 (talk · contribs)
- Guy (talk · contribs)
- Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs)
- 76.107.171.90 (talk · contribs)
- JzG (talk · contribs)
- Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is strong sentiment among several editors to include the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience" into the lede of the TCM article. The source used for this statement is an editorial in Nature ([2]) saying: "So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies."
I'm against adding "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede. "Pseudoscience" is not a verifiable attribute or fact, it's a derogatory judgement (it basically means "bad"). TCM theory is obviously superstitious bullshit, but "pseudoscience" includes the allegation that TCM is not effective - which we don't know with certainty yet, since research is ongoing. I tried to work towards including "TCM has been labeled both a protoscience and a pseudoscience" to the lede, but ran into steep opposition from the anti-quack crowd.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've argued my view in several talk page threads: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: Pseudoscience, proto-science, pre-science, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Pseudoscience, Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Protoscience. There also was a previous thread before I stepped in: Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Inappropriate conclusion in lede of article
How do you think we can help?
Give neutral input towards a compromise
Summary of dispute by QuackGuru
With an eye to the Chinese market, pharmaceutical companies have explored the potential for creating new drugs from traditional remedies.[8] Successful results have however been scarce: artemisinin, for example, which is an effective treatment for malaria, was fished out of a herb traditionally used to treat fever.[8] Although advocates have argued that research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients, it is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.[8]
The text in the WP:LEDE is a summary of Traditional Chinese medicine#Drug research in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:ASSERT. Stating "TCM has been labeled a pseudoscience" is WP:OR and does not properly summarise the body. The source for protoscience was written by the trade. WP:FRINGE demands we should use independent sources for controversial topics. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Herbxue
The term pseudoscience is a derogatory term that relies on the premise that the subject holds itself out as a science. TCM does not - it is called "Traditional Chinese Medicine" - clearly stating that it comes from a specific tradition outside of contemporary bioscience. Protoscience is more accurate, but both are outside judgements, not clear descriptions.
Beyond that, I do not believe the case has been made that the scientific and medical communities are in unison in labeling TCM pseudoscience - only a few missionaries for science vs. superstition, people that are on a mission to make a point. That does not mean that the general medical consensus has been formed. It is more responsible for us to include this opinion/label, but state who is doing the labeling. Herbxue (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Dominus Vobisdu
The material in question is fully justified by the source given, which is impeccable in accordance with out policies and guidelines. Our policies also require that we clearly identify non-conventional and fringe positions, and treat them in context with prevailing scholarly opinion, which in this case is overwhelming negative.
The argument that we cannot use the word "pseudoscience" because it is derogatory is absurd. It clearly applies in this case, and if TCM practitioners are offended, that is not WP's problem.
The OP has been trying to argue from the standpoint of "cultural sensitivity", which has no basis in WP policies or guidelines.
As far as I am concerned, the matter has been resolved. There has been ample discussion on the article talk page, and there is little point to go through it here all over again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jim1138
I agree with Adam and D.V. The matter is resolved. I would argue that the "pseudoscience" label should be in the first sentence, and not the last sentence, of the lede. BTW: there are more discussions in the archives then what is listed above in the "...resolve this previously" section. Jim1138 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Guy
What Adam said. It's not Wikipedia's job to fix the fact that TCM is largely based on refuted concepts. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Adam Cuerden
Per WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE we have to properly contextualize Traditional Chinese Medicine, and that means that the judgement of mainstream academic medicine - a few promising treatments, but mostly pseudoscience - has to appear. This is not a discussion of a historical treatment regime, after all: We are discussing something that is being actively marketed right now, and not just in China. This is not something like the completely-abandoned treatment Theriac, or even like Trepanation, where a historically common treatment with some reasonable uses is largely abandoned outside of a very limited list of valid conditions, or by an extreme fringe, quickly dismissable. In contrast, the name Traditional Chinese Medicine is itself a marketing term, and the construct defined as TCM is a combination of many historical, modified historical, and questionably historical medical practices from China. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 76.107.171.90
Summary of dispute by JzG
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
Traditional Chinese medicine discussion
Abiogenesis
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Abiogenesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- ReallyFat B. (talk · contribs)
- BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The topic sentence of the page is false in that it pronounces abiogenesis as a fact. No evidence of it having occurred has been found. It has never been reproduced in a lab. Under these criteria abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact, and should be labelled accordingly. I ask for a single word to be input - "theorized". If the day comes when abiogenesis is proven, I will have no objection whatsoever in calling it fact. But until then, it must be labelled as a theory.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've spoken on the talk page, but neither of us agree on the subject.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps pass a conclusion on whose definition is correct and should be placed in the topic sentence of the article.
Opinion of Drbogdan
FWIW - Please Refer To The Earlier Relevant Discussion Among Editors - Agreements Among Editors (including BatteryIncluded, Charles, Drbogdan, Mr. Fink and Theroadislong) Were Overwhelmingly In Favor of *Not Including* The Suggested Wording In The Present Topic Sentences (Lede) - The Present Topic Sentences (Lede) (*Without* Changes) Are Clearly The Current WP:CONSENSUS View - The Lede Is Well-Sourced, Reasonable and, imo, Excellent - Hope This Helps In Some Way - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by BatteryIncluded
User ReallyFat B (IP 86.21.101.169) disputes mainstream biological science. He is openly a religious creationist trying to convince us that there is a scientific controversy regarding evolution vs. creation. Such religious movement is well known to employ the tactic of informing the public that science is fatally wounded by the "evidence" presented by creation science. The key point is that the controversy (if any) exists only in their socio-political camp, not in science (see: Creation–evolution controversy). He follows the tactic of demoting evolutionary biology and abiogenesis to "untestable hypothesis" (WP:WEASEL) so that he can later squeeze the religious "hypothesis" of life by magic as if it was an equally scientific hypothesis. The topic has been dealt with all the way to courts of law (USA), where invariably, judges rule that creation science is not science but religion. (See: Creation science#Court determinations).
Finally, abiogenesis is not more hypothetical than evolution, expansion of the universe or gravity. The current understanding of evolutionary biology is not if abiogenesis happened, but how. Hypotheses on its possible mechanisms are listed, and it excludes magic. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Abiogenesis discussion
Hi, I'm MrScorch6200, a DRN volunteer. I believe that there was a strong enough consensus (four users) that developed around the time that the case was filed. I am tempted to close it but I would like to ask another volunteer to quickly review it and see if they agree with me or not. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs)
- Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)
- Stfg (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The dispute appears to be simple. I've requested the editor who wrote the article (recently awarded GA status) to provide quotes from one of the sources upon which s/he has based the composition of the article. S/he has declined to do so.
User:Midnightblueowl herself questions whether the source may be "factually trustworthy" in other writings, but considers the request both time consuming and inapplicable as applied to this particular article. I disagree.
A third opinion from User:Stfg objected to my request as a possible violation of copyright rules.
I exemplified my request by posting a section of an article that I wrote which includes the kind of quotes in the FOOTNOTES (not in the body of the article) that would satisfy my request. See my recent Texas Annexation for the kind of footnoting I'm requesting. I routinely, in recent articles, provide such footnotes, with quotes to support my compositions.
That's about it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I also attempted to contact the editor who recently bestowed the GA award to the article in question. The section was immediately archived, and the editor, User:Seabuckthorn ceased editing the day I logged the request for input.
See Archive IV for text of my message to his talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I would consider the dispute resolved if the review panel concurs with the legitimacy of my request, or, on the other hand, convinces me that it lacks foundation as per WR.
Summary of dispute by User:Seabuckthorn
Summary of dispute by Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)
Summary of dispute by Stfg (talk · contribs)