Closed. The original discussion of sources has been resolved. The remaining issue was whether to include miscellaneous (fringe) theories involving the shroud either in the article, in a sub-article, or neither. There is rough consensus that discussing the fringe theories in the main article would be undue weight and would violate Wikipedia policies and Arbitration Committee rulings on fringe theories. A sub-article is being developed, currently in draft space, at Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. The draft sub-article will be moved into article space when it is ready; in the meantime, editors may discuss its content on its talk page at Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin. If anyone thinks that the fringe theories should be discussed in the main article, they may use a Request for Comments. Otherwise, attempting to insert the theories into the main article may be considered disruptive editing and may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A sentence in the introduction to the The Shroud of Turin page says: "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[12][sources 1]" N.B. sources 1 expands to [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Having looked at the sources I believe sources [13], [15], [16] and [19] do not support the statement and I have tried to remove them. I have tried to come to consensus with User:Wdford and User:Hob Gadling, but we have failed. In a nutshell my argument is that while Wdford and Hob Gadling in the talk pages build a case in support of the scientific evidence, this is not what the sources say. Indeed sources [15] and [16] are explicitly against the accuracy of the Carbon-14 dating, whilst [13] is an unresolved debate between two people discussing the issue. Source [19] has a different problem in that it destroys the effect of quoting multiple scientific sources in this context since it advocates preventing work critical to the established Carbon-14 date from being published. Wdford and Hob Gadling show POV in that they deem one person in the debate in source [13] to be correct and their opponent to be incorrect. Also, they use sources [15] and [16] to build their case, which I claim is OR. CheersAarghdvaark (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to remove the contested sources having determined we could not meet consensus, rather than walk away. Ended up in an edit war. Thought this is the next step.
How do you think we can help?
Look at the discussion and come to some decision.
Summary of dispute by Guy Macon
This is primarily a religious argument, very similar to the arguments given by creationists arguing for a 10,000-year-old earth. Like that so-called "controversy" you have on one side the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and on the other side you have "shroud researchers" publishing in blogs and other poor-quality sources.
To confuse the issue, as documented here[1] both the creationists and the "shroud researchers" managed to get something pubished in a peer-reviewed journal, and in both cases the overwhelming consensus of scientists was that these are examples of the peer-review process gone badly wrong. In both cases the papers relied on sources other than the conclusions of scientific experts published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that all three labs got the the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud or Turin as being medieval in origin wrong. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material disputes the dating conclusion. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.
There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that "invisible repairs" or "re-weave".that cannot be detected by a microsope exist today or that they existed hundreads of years ago. Not a single legitimate textile expert who has actually examined shroud material disputes that the samples were representitive. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists dispute it.
There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that there was significant modern C-14 contamination -- including possible gaseous contamination by modern carbon monoxide -- that escaped cleaning of the samples tested, much less that such contamination comprises the two-thirds of the sample needed to change the measured date from the first to the fourteenth century. Not a single legitimate C14 expert who has run actual tests on shroud material believes that the post-cleaning samples contained even 1% modern contamination. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists think that contamination changed the results and made a 1st-century sample look like a 14th century sample.
There exist no articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that conclude that a burst of photons, neutrons or any other sort of radiation burned an image on the cloth. Not a single legitimate physicist who has actually examined shroud material thinks that any such thing happened. Only crackpots and pseudoscientists believe it.
These are fringe theories and should be treated as the pseudoscience that they are.
"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
and
"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
"Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning."
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The question is whether for the following sentence
"However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted."
the following four sources should be used. I will list the reasons Aarghdvard gives for not using them, followed by why they are not good reasons.
[13] "Debate of Roger Sparks and William Meacham on alt.turin-shroud" I don't care about that one. Wdford has reasons for accepting it.
[15] Jackson, John P. (5 May 2008). "A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis" I don't care about that one. Wdford has reasons for accepting it.
[16]Mechthild Flury-Lemberg: "The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality"
Aarghdvaark: "They are critical of the idea that the test piece was mended, but they are also highly critical of the radio-carbon dating"
Me: Flury-Lemberg, a textile expert, refutes the "invisible mending" hypothesis, which is within her area of expertise. This is what the source is doing and what it is supposed to do. What she says about radioncarbon (which is outside her are of expertise) has no bearing on the refutation.
[19]Steven D. Schafersman: "A Skeptical Response to Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers"
Aarghdvaark: "It's not going to be a neutral balanced article and it isn't."
Also: "So the author here is proposing censorship of articles which conflict with their views"
Me: The source is a valid one. There is no reason to disqualify Steven Schafersman on the grounds of him disagreeing with Aarghdvaark's opinion, because if that were a reason, only sources that agree with him would be valid. The only valid reason to remove this source would be that the freeinquiry website is privately owned and maintained by Schafersman himself. But Aarghdvaark has not used that reasoning, and even if he had, Schafersman would still be a valuable resource.
The censorship accusation has no basis in reality. I answered this 11:08, 1 March 2018 Link
More responses can be found on Talk:Shroud of Turin by searching for "[16]" and "[19]".
Please be concise, especially when waiting for a volunteer to open the thread. Comment on content, not contributors. Overly long posts do not clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
In my view, Aarghvaark has lost a lot of credibility
by misrepresenting what the sources said,
Example, about Schafersman: "the author here is proposing censorship of articles"
by dragging in irrelevant things the sources also said and pretending it invalidates the main point,
Example, about Flury-Lemberg: "she is emphatically critical of the radio carbon dating"
by other invalid reasoning I will skip here.
Aarghrdvark's edit has no merit, and if he had listened to us countering his reasoning, he would have seen that. He did not and chose an edit war instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am uninvolved and am trying to understand the dispute. References 13–19 are listed under "[sources 1]" so they are only sources with relevant information, and each does not have to directly verify the text in the article. Is that point disputed? Would Aarghdvaark please focus on one of the sources that they want removed and outline why it should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, and the filing party has notified the other editors. The statement by the filing party is lengthy and is not easy to understand. Please be concise and civil while waiting for a volunteer to accept the case, as well as in discussing the case with a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming a thread has been opened a thread here by Robert McClenon and Johnuniq. Replying to Johnuniq who requests a focus on one source. Choosing source [15] by Jackson, John P. "A New Radiocarbon Hypothesis". One issue I have with this source is that it is simply a self-published web page, it is neither a blog nor a published paper. However, setting that aside for now, I agree with Wdford and Hob Gadling that Jackson dismisses "a medieval re-weave" and "that the Shroud sample has been contaminated by intrinsically younger (in a radiocarbon sense) material". This would be fine if that was all he did, but he then introduces his own theory about how the Carbon-14 date could be wrong by "enrichment if carbon monoxide were to slowly interact with a sample". Jackson does not say in this source that his new theory is unsatisfactory. So the source actually raises a new hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating. How this source can be used to support the sentence in the introduction to the Shroud of Turin page, namely "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted", is beyond me - it is self-contradictory. Cheers, and thanks to you all for your time, Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure when I'm supposed to reply to what people say, but I feel I must correct Hob Gadling in his 'Summary of dispute' above in order to stop people diving down unnecessary rabbit holes. I did not delete sources [17] and [18]. I deleted sources [13], [15], [16] and [19], those sources are what this dispute resolution process is about. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note Given that the issue seems to be largely a matter of Verifiability, I think the first order of business would be to have all involved agree to which references we agree are reliable for the matter. To do this, I've dug into the references involved, and given my two cents on their use. Feel free to respond and assess the sources and my statements about them. I've broken each ref down into an individual category, so if the participants of this discussion overwhelmingly approve or reject one source, it can be collapsed. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum04:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The original Daily Telegraph ref is behind a paywall. The link is to a mirror for the benefit of readers who can't get behind the paywall. I agree this source is OK. If it can't be linked because of the paywall I suggest it still stays as a ref. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting discussion, between a carbon 14 dating expert (Rodger Sparks) and an archaeologist (William Meacham). I have no problem with the content from either party, but the conclusion from this debate is that the two agree to differ. Should it be used as a source to support the sentence in the introduction "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted."? In my opinion the sentence using this source should read "However, there is ongoing discussion about the dating". Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the conclusion of this debate was that the C14 expert was unequivocal that the C14 dating was valid, while the non-C14 expert refused to accept the input of the C14 expert and continued to contest. That is not an on-going discussion, that is a non-expert refusing to accept reality. The paragraph of the lead section does in fact say that the issue is "the subject of intense debate", but that the science backs the C14 dating. Wdford (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wdford: In order to be achieve the best odds of a mutually satisfactory agreement, I am structuring the moderation such that we first accept/reject a source, then debate what the source says. Do you agree the source merits inclusion? -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should continue to include this source. Wdford (talk)
I think this article is not a proper source as it is a self-published web page and the new ref [20] is a much better article covering the same ground. [15] reads as a very preliminary draft and is not an article. I don't think it should be used as a source at all, especially since it can be replaced by [20]. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref15 is used because Jackson says very clearly that the reweave hypothesis is disproven by the fact that STURP photos show that the weaving structure continues uninterrupted through the sample area with no evidence of a repair, and because Jackson says very clearly that the bio-contamination hypothesis is disproven because of the huge mass of contaminant that would be required. This is not included in Ref20, so we need to keep both references. Wdford (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Jackson may say something clearly, but that doesn't make it a good source. It's not up to Wikipedia standard for a source. Also you are taking the information above from this source, but ignoring his alternative hypothesis. I understand that e.g. the new ref [20] rubbishes Jackson's alternative hypothesis, but you are constructing that argument, source [15] does not say that. I think in fact you are trying to add too many sources, and the arguments presented in these sources don't easily fit with a simple sentence. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Jackson is a member of the pro-authenticity camp, he is a recognized scientist (unlike many of the pro-authenticity camp), he was a STURP member and examined the shroud hands-on (unlike many of the pro-authenticity camp), and he bases his opinions on actual shroud evidence (unlike many of the pro-authenticity camp). He is thus a reliable source. He is referring to the STURP photos, and he says they show that there is no evidence of any possible repair. That directly addresses one of the main challenges to the C14 dating. He also mentions the fact that there could not possibly have been enough bio-contamination present to swing the dating, which addresses the other of the main challenges to the C14 dating. He then proposes a third challenge, which was subsequently tested and scientifically refuted (see Ref20). What is the problem here? Wdford (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem here is that you are making the argument, not the source. You say: "which was subsequently tested and scientifically refuted (see Ref20)" - the source itself highlights the hypothesis, but does NOT say it was refuted. You are taking bits from a source which support your statement, and ignoring stuff which are against it. And again this source does not meet Wikipedia's criterion to be acceptable as a source, as it is self-published Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Ref20 says, at paragraph 6: "These initial tests show no significant reaction - even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before." It also says at paragraph 7: "It is important to realise, however, that only if some enriched contaminant can be identified does it become credible that the date is wrong by 1000 years. As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." Does that not sound like it is refuting the hypothesis? Wdford (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wdford, this section is supposed to be a discussion on ref [15]. You have used ref [15] to support the statement, but here you are using ref [20] to argue that in part ref [15] is wrong and therefore bits of [15] should be ignored. Without a close reading of the case you are making here and on the article talk page the sources you quote are at the least contradictory. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The real problem here is WP:REDFLAG. Gold-plated sources would be required to assert the truth of a fringe theory, but gold-plated sources are not required to point out its flaws (WP:PARITY). That is because scientists generally do not bother rigorously investigating fringe theories. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is a textile expert. She is a good source to support the claim that the piece of shroud used for the dating was not a later repair, which supports the carbon 14 date being correct. However she also says (her emphasis): "The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, without having to construct an untenable "mending theory". This clearly doesn't support the carbon-14 date being correct. You could argue that the material was adequately cleaned, so the quote above is not valid. But then you are selecting to believe part of what she says and reject others, so the use of her work as a clear source to support one argument over another is problematic. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is not a C14 expert, she does not pretend to be a C14 expert, and she does not presume to judge C14 testing. She has stated unequivocally that the repair hypothesis is junk - an untenable "mending theory". Put that one in the bank. Second, she addresses the theory that the color differences in the photos indicates a different chemistry in the cloth, and that this is an indication that the sampled area is not original cloth. She shoots this down as well, and explains that the chemical difference is due to the presence of the grease, not to any intrusive textiles. Put that one in the bank as well. She also notes that the presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method - she doesn't say due to the grease the carbon-14 method is actually totally useless. Actual C14 experts had that one covered – they cleaned the samples, like they clean all their samples. Again, like with Jackson, there is no problem with accepting expert input from an expert in their own field of expertise, while pointing out that their opinions in other fields of which they know little, is less reliable. We don't have to invalidate the entire expert because they once made an anecdotal comment outside of their own area of expertise. Are you seriously trying to make the article say that the authenticity question is still open? Wdford (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Clearly she does presume to judge C14 testing! I am not trying to force the article to say one thing or another, simply to ensure that the it reflects what the sources say. Some of the sources you seek to use actually say that the authenticity question is open, as this one does. Are you assuming the case is closed, therefore we can use anything anyone says to support that it is closed, but reject anything they say about it being open because they must be wrong? Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Where does Flury-Lemberg actually say that the authenticity question is still open? Please point us to that statement? Wdford (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
In the part I quoted in the first para in this section, to repeat in part (her emphasis): "to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method". I think she is clearly challenging the carbon 14 dating and therefore in her opinion, as far as this source goes, the authenticity question is still very much open. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to emphasize that she states that she believes the C-14 method useless in this case, rather than as a whole, per "These imponderables, together with the fine coal dust embedded in all the fibres of the cloth make the use of the carbon-14 analysis unsuitable in this case.". IazygesConsermonorOpus meum04:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, her actual comment was that "The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site" was the potential problem. Once the presence had been converted into absence by the cleaning process, then all was well. Obvious. Nowhere does she say that the "authenticity question is still very much open". Wdford (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The quotes given by me and Iazyges are also her actual comments. I don't understand what you are getting at by saying: Nowhere does she say that the "authenticity question is still very much open". As far as I'm aware no-one is saying she said precisely that, so I agree with you. But are you suggesting that because she doesn't use your actual choice of words then she is not doubting the authenticity of the C-14 dating? Clearly, in her own words, she does dispute the validity of the C-14 method in this particular case. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
This will be resolved by adding extra wording to the paragraph to describe each challenge, and each refutation, separately. See below. Wdford (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I am very wary of this source being used to support any statement about science. The author self-identifies in the source as being someone with an agenda and a bias against the shroud being original. He also suggests a paper supporting the shroud being original should not have been allowed to be published, or that it was wrong that it was published. This is censorship. It is very dangerous to science, because it means if his view is accepted one side of the debate is shut down - but not because of the science. This actually neuters the validity of all scientific argument in favour of the carbon-14 date being correct, because - well, the other side haven't been allowed to make their case. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
He isn't the only one. [ See https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth ] and [ http://skepdic.com/shroud.html ]. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "being someone with an agenda and a bias against the shroud being original" when the conclusion of virtually every legitimate scientist who has done any testing on shroud material is that the shroud was created in the middle ages. We also use sources that are "biased" against a claims of 10,000-yer-old earth, claims that vaccines cause autism, claims that the Earth is flat, claims that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, claims that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, etc., etc. We have a policies that tells us how to deal with this. See WP:PARITY and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a new source since we started this discussion. It is about the hypothesis of John Jackson, as first encountered in source [15]. I have no problem with this source, except it being used as a source for the statement "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted." A quote from the article is: "The hypothesis put forward in the film is that the linen of the Shroud might have been contaminated by carbon monoxide." Since it is putting forward a hypothesis challenging the radio carbon dating, I can't see how it can be used in this place? In my opinion, this source is a good source but would be correctly used as support for the sentence "However, there is ongoing discussion about the dating". Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Interpretation (20)
If you read the entire article, it says in para 6 that: "These initial tests show no significant reaction - even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year. This is to be expected and essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before." In other words, this challenge to the original C14 dating was tested by experts, and also refuted. There is no on-going discussion - Jackson is a professional scientist and he accepted the test results. He is now trying to find a combinations of plausible environmental conditions that might allow this process to actually happen in real life, but he has not yet come forward with a fresh hypothesis, so the C14 dates still stand. Wdford (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
More succinctly, Jackson proposed a third form of challenge to the C14 dating. This was tested by C14 experts, and was disproved. This source therefore is useful in supporting the statement that "all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted". Wdford (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aarghdvaark and Wdford: I think the best way to deal with the sentence would be to replace it with a paragraph, which would be more specific and outline the evidence for and against the medieval dating, listing expert supports and expert objections. This would allow us to focus on what each expert source says, rather than attempting to state the view of multiple peoples and groups within a compressed area. Can we agree to such a compromise? IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 04:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC) P.S.: @Hob Gadling: Forgot to ping earlier. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum13:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, or to amending the sentence in question to "However, scientists who carried out the radiocarbon dating vigorously support the accuracy of their dating". But then using refs [12], [14], [17], [18] and [20] - i.e. without refs [13], [15], [16] and [19]. Although actually with this wording I think source [13] can also be used. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that the paragraph with multiple reasons would be more "long-lasting" in terms of preventing another dispute; as any argument coming out of it would likely involve adding/removing one or a few sources, rather than a total rewrite. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum13:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need an extra paragraph, but two or three sentences should be fine - and much better than the present overly-concise summary. Please note that it is NOT ONLY "the scientists who carried out the radiocarbon dating" who support the accuracy of the dating - it is supported by all C14 experts as well as by some other credible specialists in other fields who have examined the shroud hands-on. I would suggest that we mention each of the (three) credible challenges to the C14 results, and then all the sources who have refuted that particular challenge? Wdford (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest perhaps amending the last sentence of that paragraph to read as follows: "However, multiple experts having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence, have scientifically refuted all of the medieval repair hypothesis [ref and ref and ref], the bio-contamination hypothesis [ref and ref and ref] and the carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis [ref]." How about that? Concise, but also factually accurate. Wdford (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Quoting below from the current introduction. Hopefully I'm putting in enough for the context of the disputed sentence to be clear.
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages,[4] between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating.[5][6][7][8][9][10] However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[11][sources 1]
With Wdford's proposed amendment this would become:
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a corner piece of the shroud from the Middle Ages,[4] between the years 1260 and 1390. Some shroud researchers have challenged the dating, arguing the results were skewed by the introduction of material from the Middle Ages to the portion of the shroud used for radiocarbon dating.[5][6][7][8][9][10] However, multiple experts having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence, have scientifically refuted all of the medieval repair hypothesis [ref and ref and ref], the bio-contamination hypothesis [ref and ref and ref] and the carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis [ref].
I think this is over-emphatic for an encyclopedia and therefore actually weakens what it is trying to say. There is no need to say "multiple experts", nor "relevant specializations", nor "verifiable shroud evidence", and they haven't actually refuted them in all cases. e.g. Ref [20], which supports the accuracy of the C-14 medieval dating result, says: "essentially confirms why this sort of contamination has not been considered a serious issue before" and "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate". These statements are not the same as claiming all the hypotheses have been scientifically refuted, the author is correctly claiming only that his conclusion has not been refuted - there is a subtle difference. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Since some editors are trying to make it look as though the issue is still an open question, we do indeed need to say "multiple experts", with "relevant specializations", using "verifiable shroud evidence". Ref[20] is specifically addressing the carbon monoxide contamination hypothesis, which will be obvious once we have separated out the hypotheses and their refutations. The author of Ref[20] says openly that there is no scientific evidence to even suggest that the C14 dating is inaccurate. Since this is coming from an actual C14 expert, that is actually a very conclusive statement indeed. Wdford (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree ref [20] is an excellent source. So why not simply say:"But Christopher Bronk Ramsey who contributed to the original dating which determined a mediaeval date for the shroud says there is no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.[20]" (end quote). If you could somehow include ref [12] that would be good, but I think including other sources, and certainly beating the reader over the head with the phrases above, will lessen the strength of this statement? Science really depends on quality, not quantity. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Since there is seemingly such a strong thrust to make it look as though the question of possible authenticity is still open, the more specific we are the better. Wdford (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. There is an equally strong thrust by various crackpots to prove that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, but in accordance to the Wikipedia policies I listed above we only have have one short paragraph on it at Moon landing#Historical empirical evidence. We do, however (again in accordance to the Wikipedia policies I listed above) have a detailed article about the groups that are pushing the hoax theory. It is at Moon landing conspiracy theories. We could create an article on Shroud of Turin conspiracy theories which covers every argument the shroudies make in detail, but Wikipedia's policies simply do not allow us to go into a bunch of detail about the shroudie arguments and sources in the main article. Please read the policies and guidelins I listed and I am sure that you will see what I mean. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wdford, going back to your proposal above, in order to clarify some of the issues I have with it. Firstly with "multiple experts having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence, have scientifically refuted all ...", I think you would need to either cite someone who says there are multiple experts who do this, or you would need to cite here multiple experts who have scientifically refuted the counter claims. But I don't think you should use as experts people who are critical of the Carbon-14 dating, because a reader then ends up thinking half these people don't support the Carbon-14 dating so the sentence is wrongly sourced. Secondly I think the bit "having relevant specializations and with access to verifiable shroud evidence" is not really appropriate to an encyclopedia, as although it may be true it can be taken for granted. Putting this in makes the article less authoritative since it implies Wikipedia is taking sides in deciding what specializations are relevant etc., unless this statement can be sourced? Can you at least suggest which refs you are wanting to use too please? Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this really qualifies as a Conspiracy Theory, but I would strongly support creating a new article called Fringe theories about the dating of the Shroud of Turin. We can then let the shroudies load in all the latest "tests" etc without concern about weighting, and simply link the proper articles to that site.
As far as the lede on this article goes, I am still proposing that we mention each of the three "scientific" challenges to the dating result specifically, and then list the refutations of each together with their multiple respective references. Please note – the "fact" that three people thought they saw an image of a flower that nobody else can see, does not count as a scientific challenge to the dating result.
"Verifiable shroud evidence" means exactly what it says – it excludes tests done on threads with no proper chain of custody which some claim originated from a man who had no authority to possess or to hand out actual shroud samples, and it excludes made-up tests done on crumbling micro-fragments that were cherry-picked our of vacuumed dust-balls.
"Relevant specializations" is also straight-forward. When we discuss textile experts scrutinising the actual shroud looking for evidence of a repair, then a relevant specialist is a person who is an actual textile expert. When we discuss the possibility of residual contamination skewing the carbon count, then a relevant expert is an actual C14 expert. When we are talking about an analysis of STURP photos, then a relevant expert is a STURP scientist who has actually studied those actual photos. We do not consider a C14 expert to be more expert on textiles than a textile expert, and we do not consider a textile expert to be more expert on C14 dating than a C14 expert. We do not consider a psychic ex-nun to be an expert on anything really. Seemingly this obvious conclusion cannot actually be taken for granted, and so we will need to be more specific.
I note yet again what seems to be a transparent attempt to exclude all sources that refute the challenges to the C14 dating, so as to make the article suggest that the dating question is still open. Wdford (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wdford, please don't think what is written is what you assume would have been written, without reading it. Your last jibe about "a transparent attempt to exclude all sources that refute the challenges to the C14 dating", which I assume is meant to be aimed at me, just hops over the last proposal I made, which used ref [20] and suggested also that ref [12] be used. These are in my opinion the stronger sources which refute the challenges to the C14 dating. So please clarify what is bugging you. p.s. I'm not a "shroudie", so such derogatory remarks are water off a duck's back to me, but still, can we please drop them? For what it's worth I am concerned that the science is accurately quoted and the statements in the introduction are properly sourced.
I also well understand that "Verifiable shroud evidence" and "Relevant specializations" are straight-forward. Since they are so straight-forward then they don't actually need to be included, and would be better off left off. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iazyges, I think there's a significant difference between Moon landing conspiracy theories and querying the medieval date found by C14 dating for the shroud. Querying an experimental result is not a conspiracy theory, it is actually a legitimate scientific activity, and the science needs to be robust enough to survive the query - which is what is causing all the discussion. Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Wdford, I'm assuming from what you say above (that there's "such a strong thrust to make it look as though the question of possible authenticity is still open" and "so as to make the article suggest that the dating question is still open"), that a big problem for you is that you want the article to say the question of authenticity is closed and the shroud is mediaeval. If you wish to say the case is closed you need to find a reliable source which says that, otherwise you can't say that and trying to say that means the statement is unsourced and should be removed. BTW what do you object to in my proposal for the sentence in the introduction of: "But Christopher Bronk Ramsey who contributed to the original dating which determined a mediaeval date for the shroud says there is no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.[20]" (end quote). Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Querying an experimental result is only a legitimate scientific activity when there are credible scientific grounds to do so. Simply refusing to accept reality is not a legitimate scientific activity – quite the opposite. The question of authenticity is indeed closed, and the shroud is indeed mediaeval. The C14 dating was based on solid scientific evidence, and solid scientific processes. The challenges to the dating result are based on supposition rather than science, and each of them have been refuted by actual experts using solid scientific evidence. Therefore the C14 dating stands, and the C14 dating says the shroud is medieval. Any wording that hedges this reality is misleading.
I get what you are saying Wdford. But what I'm asking for is a source which says the same thing, otherwise what you say cannot go in Wikipedia. Please provide a source, not your own arguments. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges asked a reasonable question ("Would you agree to the creation of a sub-article named Controversy about the dating of the Shroud of Turin (or Guy Macon's solution of Shroud of Turin conspiracy theories) in order to both have a neutral title, and not violate UNDUE?") and immediately Aarghdvaark started arguing his side of the content dispute and Wdford started responding. Could you both pleas knock it off (which implies leaving off-topic comments by the other unanswered) and --in this section only -- stick to the question asked?
I would hope that Aarghdvaark would realize that such an article would create a place where the evidence presented by pro-authenticity shroud researchers (even the psychic ex-nun's theory, the theory from Chuck Missler that it was a Quantum Hologram flash-imprinted with an image of Jesus during his miraculous resurrection, etc.) could be documented with nobody trying to exclude the "evidence" as being unreliable as long as there is evidence that someone published the theory somewhere. Compare our article on Moon landing conspiracy theories -- nowhere else on Wikipedia are David Percy's theories[2] even mentioned, much less evaluated. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy, yes, Iazyges asked a reasonable question, and I answered. Please stop banging on about the Moon landing conspiracy, it is not a good analogy. And of course I am talking with Wdford. This dispute resolution is really about the sentance in the introduction which you and Wdford support, without proper sourcing - it is not about pro-authenticity shroud researchers. I have asked you and Wdford for sources, can you provide them please rather than simply restating what you think or dissapearing down rabbit holes. Cheers Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any place where you answered Iazyges' question about a sub page. Could you please provide a direct quote where you did that? --Guy Macon (talk)
The sources have been stated on the talk page, and discussed extensively over weeks, as you well know. All the evidence comes from the sources, and it is all there for the readers to pursue. To continue to do research is fine and noble, but until they actually find something scientifically valid based on actual verifiable shroud evidence, to continue to claim that the C14 dating is unreliable is merely a fringe theory. To clarify the matter even further, I propose to change the disputed sentence as follows:
However, all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[1][2][3] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] the bio-contamination hypothesis[8][9] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[10]
Thank you Wdford for providing the sources for your proposed statement here. I am though still troubled by the sentence. I agree with user:Actuarialninja the word "refuted" is too strong, it and "all" make the sentence incorrect in scientific terms. Note that Ramsey says "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." He does not say "all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted", because that is not what a scientist would say. To give an analogy which Guy might like, Einstein's theory of General Relativity is a very secure theory, but no scientist would say "all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge General Relativity have been scientifically refuted", they'd say something like "General Relativity has not been proved to be wrong (or not been unable to explain observational evidence)". Also including the sources by Jackson (weak source) and Schafersman (anti-science) weakens the scientific legitimacy of your statement. Strangely and ironically, the statement you are trying to make is weaker in scientific terms than the one I proposed. How weird is that? Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Before we argue upon the contents of the article, can we agree to create it? I think fringe may be a good name for it, as the viewpoint appears to be, regardless of whether or not it is actually the correct one, the minority. Fringe does not necessarily dictate that it is incorrect, just that a large number of scholars consider it to be so. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, Aarghdvaark, and Wdford: Would you all agree to create the proposed topic as an article? If so, I would suggest it first be created as a draft, and we can shift discussion of the article creation itself to the talk page of that draft, and keep the case here for talk about the case itself. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong Agreement: I would suggest this format: "theory #1" "theory #1 reception" "theory #2" "theory #2 reception" etc. and would further suggest holding off on putting the theories in order (chronological? alphabetical? importance?) until we have a fairly complete list. I would like to see a just-the-facts page without a lot of editorializing by Wikipedia editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we have wandered away from the original dispute, which was about the introductory sentence:
"However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted.[5][6][7][8][9][10]"
(sources in article), or Wdford's proposed alternative:
"However, all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[1][2][3] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] the bio-contamination hypothesis[8][9] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[10]"
(sources above). I disagree with both of these on the grounds that: "all of the scientific hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" is not a statement made by any source quoted. This means it is unsourced and should not be used. WP:PROVEIT says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". Wdford explains why he thinks it is justified by making a case that all the sources combined support his view, which in fact is explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia:No original research which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
I have suggested an alternative statement:
"But Christopher Bronk Ramsey who contributed to the original dating which determined a mediaeval date for the shroud says there is no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.[20]".
As stated before this is a strong statement for the accuracy of the C-14 dating and is supported by what the source says. Wdford and Guy have so far not criticised this sentence. I think the original sentence should be replaced by my proposal or equivalent.
As for the secondary article, I think this will open up a can of worms, and am against it. I pointed out above my concern with the proposal is that the Shroud of Turin controversy is nothing like the Moon landing conspiracy theory. The single point at issue with the Shroud of Turin is the C-14 dating, whilst the Moon landing conspiracy implies an absolutely gargantuan cover up. I agree with much that Wdford wrote about this over at the talk page. I believe the C-14 dating correctly showed a mediaeval date for the piece of shroud examined, but it is still just a single data point, and the acknowledged procedure in such a case is to reserve judgement until differences between other estimates of the age and the C-14 dating can be resolved. As an example of other evidence, the crucification marks are consistent with Roman crucifixtion practice, but not with mediaeval representations. This conclusion may be argued with, but at the moment the jury is out so it remains an inconsistency. In conclusion, the correct scientific response at the moment is we just don't know but we stand by our C-14 dating. And that is what the introduction needs to say. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You make it sound ("The single point at issue with the Shroud of Turin is the C-14 dating") as if the C14 dating is the only reason to think that it is a medieval forgery. The fact is that there is zero evidence that it isn't and many reasons to believe that it is.
No examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus
Jewish burial practice -- which the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus -- was to use multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.
There is no historical record of the Shroud existing prior to the mid-fourteenth century.
The shroud has serious anatomical problems, a lack of wraparound distortions, a strong resemblance to medieval depictions of Jesus that are now considered to be unlikely.
Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red, and have failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists in an attempt to identify blood.
I have been following the discussion, not as a DRN volunteer, but as an interested Wikipedia editor and as a Roman Catholic Christian. I have a few comments. As a Catholic, I would like to believe that the shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. However, that is not important to my faith. Besides, Catholicism has almost always (with a few exceptions) taught that faith and reason should be complementary, not opposed. It appears to me that the discussion at this point is no longer on sources but is stalled on the key question of whether there is evidence to support the idea that the shroud is genuine. Unfortunately, having read the discussion, I think that the case is against the authenticity of the shroud, and at this point what is important is simply to recognize the truth.
I see two problems with the authenticity of the shroud. The first is the carbon-14 evidence, which is that the shroud is of medieval origin, between 1260 and 1390, of the time period in which there are first accounts of the shroud. It is true that, if the shroud is authentic, then it was subjected to events and actions that science cannot explain, which may have included radiation, and that these could change its apparent age, but it is unlikely that a radiation event would change the apparent age of the shroud to an origin consistent with when it first appears in documents. The second is simply the fact that there is no solid historical record of the shroud prior to about 1390. All previous “records” are simply back-fitting of the missing provenance of the shroud. The absence of good historical records for the proposed burial cloth is very different from the status of the burial place of Jesus, which has been a place of pilgrimage since ancient times. It is true that the negative nature of the image of Jesus on the shroud is intriguing, since negative photography was not known until the 1840’s (and the negative nature of the image was discovered in the 1890’s). However, that doesn’t authenticate the shroud, and the gap in the historical record, and the carbon-14 date, are problematic.
At this point, there appear to be two questions for Wikipedia. The first is how much credence to give to theories that claim to authenticate the shroud. I would say, unfortunately, not much. Just because many of us want to believe that the shroud is authentic doesn’t create evidence that the shroud is authentic. Wikipedia needs to present what reliable sources say – and that is that the shroud appears to date to sometimes between 1260 and 1390, probably about 1390. I think that is settled. Anyone who disagrees can request a Request for Comments, but there is no need to continue to bludgeon the process.
The second question is whether to create a sub-article. I personally think that a sub-article is a good idea, but that is only my opinion. That should be based on consensus, and possibly on a Request for Comments.
It appears to me that the discussion should have been completed except for the decision as to whether to split off a sub-article.
Hi Guy, thanks for those points above. Interesting, and for the most part I agree with them (apart from the zero evidence that it isn't a mediaeval forgery). But the point I'm making is that the sentence in the introduction which I believe you support is not supported by the sources. I've proposed an alternative which is in support of your viewpoint I believe, and which is supported by the source. But you simply ignore it and start to argue about other things. This argument is about sources, not what either of us believes about the shroud. I agree with Robert that this has gone on long enough, so can you please address the issue about the sourcing?
Hi Robert, good luck with trying to push a reasonable viewpoint. Not everyone will agree. And then we fall back on insisting that statements are verified by sources. Which is where we are now. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You (Aarghdvaark) say "I've proposed an alternative which is in support of your viewpoint I believe, and which is supported by the source. But you simply ignore it and start to argue about other things" my response is that WP:WEIGHT tells as "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views" and thus your alternative should not be included at all. You can call my asking you to follow Wikipedia policy "arguing about other things" all you want, but you are still required to follow the policy. Please stop the WP:IDHT song and dance and discuss what Wikipedia's policies tell us to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Guy, you appear to have a filter that everything I say must be in support of a 1st C AD date for the shroud, so you don't need to read what I say because you already know it's bonkers :) What you write here is nonsense, assuming you actually support the mainstream scientific view that the C-14 date for the shroud is correct. The source I quoted is by a very eminent Oxford University professor who is arguing the mainstream version that the C-14 date is correct. So I am fully in line with WP:WEIGHT. Since there has been no sensible challenge to my proposed version of the sentence, and no attempt to show where in any of the sources the original sentence came from (and no challenge to my view that the original sentence is WP:OR), I think I am justified in deleting the original sentence and inserting the following sentence in the introduction:
However Christopher Ramsey, a physicist who worked on the C-14 dating which determined a mediaeval date for the shroud sample, says there is no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate,[11] and the Daily Telegraph published a piece saying "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it".[12]
And I fixed it by inserting all the other material needed to make the sentence complete and accurate and thoroughly referenced. I refrained from using the words "relevant specialisations" and "actual shroud evidence", but that can easily be added in as well if needed. Wdford (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
You didn't fix it, except in the sense that a horse race can be "fixed". You simply reverted to a sentence which is OR. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aarghdvaark:, would you object if I removed second part of your sentence (i.e. "and the Daily Telegraph published a piece saying "The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it".")? This second half looks to me to be cumbersome, as it simply states that some entity published some article (one might very well put some other publisher's article, i.e. Nat Geo or BBC etc.). I think the point is better carried and less diluted with the first part of the sentence as a standalone. Actuarialninja (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Actuarialninja:, I agree, I was only trying to make an extra strong statement to try and fit in with Wdford et al. But, yes it doesn't fit with how an encyclopedia should present things - calmly and concisely. Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Note
This is one of the longest-running threads that we have had on this noticeboard. It appears that the moderator of this discussion is on vacation or Wiki-break, so I will try to close out the discussion. I think that the issues of the reliability of sources and the other related issues have been addressed. The one question that has not been answered is whether to split off a sub-article. If everyone agrees that the article is all right, this discussion will simply be closed. If everyone agrees that there should be a sub-article, then someone can write it. If some editors want a sub-article, there can be a Request for Comments on splitting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The sub-article is under construction at Draft:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin and will be posted to article space when it is ready. If a shroudie wants to challenge this decision, he is free to post an RfC, but the consensus is pretty clear that addressing the pro-authenticity arguments in detail in the main article violates WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PARITY, and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and that addressing the pro-authenticity arguments in a sub page is allowed by the above policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I've corrected the name of the space that the sub-article is in development in. The discussion is on the draft talk page, but the draft is the draft page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Editor Comments
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. There has not been any recent discussion on the article talk page. Discuss any proposed changes on the article talk page, Talk:Ashkenazi Jews. If discussion is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I edited the article on Ashkenazi Jews to say:
In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine.[147][148]
Genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded.[149] Other studies support the theory. for example, "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE"[150] by Ellen Levy Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" [151] by Eran Elhaik.
The links for the two studies I cited are the following:
A Reassessment of the Jewish DNA Evidence
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/1/61/728117/The-Missing-Link-of-Jewish-European-Ancestry
There are people who want t keep information supporting the Khazarian hypothesis out of this article and discredit it by associating it with anti-Semitism in furtherance of a political agenda. Politics and science don't mix.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've posted to the talk page. I applied for dispute resolution already.
How do you think we can help?
Replace what's in the "The Khazar Hypothesis" section now with my edit.
Summary of dispute by byteflush
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ashkenazi Jews discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle cases which are primarily conduct disputes, those go to WP:ANI, but even if this focused on the content issue between the parties it would be premature. DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before filing here. If an editor will not discuss, consider the advice given here. - TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User: FOX 52 is preventing me from contributing in any capacity to the Cyprus Air Forces article. A review of the edits will demonstrate that have sourced and researched my edits. I charge that Fox 52 is bullying me, by saying on my talk page that he /she will have me blocked from wikipedia for opposing their agenda.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
After the initial rollback, I attempted to comply with Fox 52's initial demand to avoid over detailing the tables on the page. I then made several well sourced and researched edits to the page that were then rolled back again, without reasoning, and accompanied by a threatening message on my talk page.
How do you think we can help?
This action is bullying. It is also demonstrating that FOX 52 is not allowing anyone else to contribute to the page.
Summary of dispute by FOX 52
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cyprus Air Forces discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are two problems with this request. First, and most importantly, there has been no real discussion recently on the article talk page, and not much discussion at all on the article talk page. Discuss any concerns at Talk:Woodbury University. Second, this noticeboard does not usually do well at handling a dispute with a very large number of editors (which appears to be all of the registered and unregistered editors who have edited the article, mostly not recently). Editors are advised to discuss their concerns at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute began with posting of "Whistleblower" section in article, and secondarily with addition of "declining enrollment" statement in introduction. Content was repeatedly removed by University employees, and then re-instated with non-neutral wording by 1 or more other editors ("Whistleblower" section now titled "Whistleblower controversy after alleged abuse and cover-up by school executives" and implicates specific employees by name). Descriptive, neutrally worded information about University academic programs is repeatedly removed by editors to make controversial introduction content more prominent/visible, damaging the usefulness of the article. My hands are a bit tied in terms of making edits, as I'm a university-employed librarian with a COI; I doubt any resolution to this exasperating back-and-forth will occur without neutral parties offering advice or mediation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have detailed my concerns on the Talk page about non-neutral language on both sides of the dispute, though editors involved will only comment through notes on the edit history page.
How do you think we can help?
Editing of article wording to a neutral point of view by an outside party, and possible vandalism protection to the article, may help calm this troubling pattern of non-neutral editing and vandalism. If alternative options outside of DRN are instead suggested by editors, that advice alone would be much appreciated.
Summary of dispute by 181.192.178.215
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 190.181.12.114
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 179.7.122.69
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 81.247.74.194
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TheSkyistheLimit
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Greg.houle
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 82.44.24.33
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WU1884
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 154.68.55.72
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 77.68.13.219
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 96.230.21.92
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2600:1012:b066:668d:49b9:5d90:86ec:1833
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2602:306:8013:1ae0:f105:5a20:26d3:d40a
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jason.matthews2323
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sabrinataylor1979
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SidPabla
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Woodbury University discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as conduct issue. The repeated removal from the talk page of efforts to discuss edits to an article is a violation of talk page guidelines and is considered disruptive editing. This noticeboard depends on cooperation with all of the involved editors with a moderator; we cannot force an editor who is disruptive to participate in mediation. This conduct issue and other conduct issues should be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I've come across an editor (User:Hafizh Ahmeed) who is repeatedly reverting my edits without discussion and is deleting my comments/attempts at discussion (in violation of WP:TPO). They deleted my attempts at discussion on Talk:Cannibal Corpse and they refused to acknowledge my comments on their talk page and instead just deleted them there too.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've messaged them on their talk page, explaining WP:TPO to them in an attempt at educating and preventing further deletion of comments, where they promptly ignored/deleted that comment instead of replying. I've also attempted discussion at Talk:Cannibal Corpse, where they deleted my thread (in violation of WP:TPO) instead of discussing the topic of the thread.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps other users could message him or help in the discussion? Though, based on past actions, they may just continue ignoring and deleting any attempt at discussion. If nothing else, a block from editing could be used due to their repeated ignoring of policies and refusal to communicate with other users (communication is important for anything to get done here).
Summary of dispute by Hafizh Ahmeed
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Cannibal Corpse discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor did not notify the other editors of this case within 72 hours after it was noted that they had not notified the other editors. Editors should resume discussion at the article talk page. A new request for dispute resolution can be filed here at any time, but the filing editor must notify the other editors. A Request for Comments may be used by any editor. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement (the latter only after notice of discretionary sanctions under ARBEE). Editors are advised that walls of text are not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
- the statement "well supported" be removed from the description in the first paragraph.
- the article be restructured in a way that would present all statements (theories, hypothesis etc.) in a pro/con/critice/refute critic/debate manner so that anyone can asses the information and come to his/her own conclusion.
- one of the presented theories rests upon several statements of which one is a negative one, and the other is relevant only when the first has been supported. As such I asked for supporting "evidence" for the first statement. No is provided in the article, none was given by the editors.
- i DID NOT ask for the removal of content, but a change in the way it is presented.
- i did ask for the addition of content (pertinent to the theories being used, or created as, political tools)
- all efforts have been shut down by editors. I will let you asses the neutrality of their argument if you so chose - in my opinion rejecting this on the basis of statements that fly in the face of information presented in the article is not balanced or neutral at all
- on of the editors has started an investigation on me. while I have no problem with that - having already explained all my actions - I still consider it as an intimidation attempt.
- I repeatedly stressed the conundrum of what is considered a mainstream source at a time when Wikipedia itself is a mainstream source used for fact checking - thus anything on Wikipedia has the potential of becoming mainstream, supported or not.
- since the debate is going nowhere, and taking into consideration the point mentioned above, I feel that this is the last resort - arbitration.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive debate on the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
By enforcing a neutral point of view. By removing the foregone conclusions contained in the article. By enforcing neutrality and balance (for example the article hints towards one theory as being used as a political tool yet the editors did not mention that others were used, or even created as political tools - which in my opinion is bias). By allowing the restructuring of the article such that any person accessing it may asses each statement (theory, hypothesis) based on its supporting argument
Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KIENGIR
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Iovaniorgovan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Borsoka
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the article talk page. It appears that it hasn't all been in top-down fashion, but the discussion has been sufficient to open a discussion here (but see below about sockpuppetry). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note - I am putting this case on hold until the conduct disputes involving sockpuppetry are resolved. We don't handle a case at this content forum and at a conduct forum at the same time, and sockpuppetry is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note - I have taken this case off of hold because the sockpuppet investigation has been closed inconclusively. I will caution the filing party that the wall of text that they posted at the SPI was neither appropriate for the SPI nor a good sign of their ability to work a dispute cooperatively. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed due to lack of response. Participation at this noticeboard is encouraged but voluntary. The filing editor presented a proposal to shorten the hatnote. The other editor has not responded. This doesn't establish consensus, but it does establish a reasonable effort by the filing editor. The filing editor is advised to edit the hatnote as they have proposed, and to discuss their edits further on the talk page. If the other editor reverts the edits but does not discuss them, see this paper. Either party may use a Request for Comments, which does establish consensus. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
FULL LINK to dispute. The disambiguation hatnote at Daimler Company is too long and convoluted. It reads like an example of how not to write a hatnote according to established guidelines about brevity and relevance (see WP:1HAT and WP:RELATED). Yet, all my attempts to rewrite it and bring it in line with the guidelines have been systematically reverted by the other user.
I proposed three subsequent versions of the hatnote (1, 2, 3), each one with increasing breadth to take the other user's points into account, while moving the excess information to the article lead, but all three attempts have been bluntly reverted, and the hatnote remains unchanged.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing it on Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I tried to explain to the other user how disambiguation and related hatnotes work on Wikipedia, but to no avail (in fact I was told to "just leave it alone"). Can someone familiar with the subject please point out why the current hatnote should be rewritten per existing guidelines?
Summary of dispute by Eddaido
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am sorry to have to say this. 1. I did not write the hatnote under discussion. 2. It must be a great deal clearer than this particular editor would like the hatnote to be. I am not sure that this editor does in fact understand the matters involved. 3. (Again counter to what is said by her/him) I am not alone in my concerns about this editor's plans - please have a look at the talk page. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my contribution to the talkpage discussion, the various related automotive uses of the Daimler name are not well understood, and the particular use in the article in question may be particularly problematic. This isn't just a case of two different people or organisations coincidentally having the same name; in this case the name is derived from the same person for the same reason and used similarly in all cases to name otherwise unrelated car companies after him. For those reasons I believe that in this exceptional case the comprehensive hatnote given is required to fully and clearly distinguish this article from the other articles with very closely related uses of the same name. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I will try to resolve this issue. First, will the editors please read the mediation rules and follow the rules? Be civil and concise (even if you don't think that the hatnote is concise). Comment on content (including the hatnote), not contributors. Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the hatnote, or why it should be left as is? Third, if there are any other issues, identify them briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
First statements by editors
The hatnote should achieve the following:
Inform the reader that the article in question (Daimler Company) is about a British company, not about the more widely known German manufacturer Daimler-Benz or its successor Daimler AG (possibly mentioning the licensing relationship between the two).
Inform the reader that in any case there is a comprehensive disambiguation page at Daimler (disambiguation), to which, by the way, Daimler itself redirects.
This can be achieved by a simple hatnote such as the last one I proposed (3). Instead, the hatnote is not the place for:
Explaining who the original founder was (Gottlieb Daimler) and what was his job.
Explaining the genealogy of the Daimler businesses in Germany and Austria.
which is what the current hatnote does and is precisely what WP:1HAT says that should be covered in the lead (or in the dab page) instead. This is a case of disambiguation like thousands of others on Wikipedia, and I don't see why it should not adhere to the established guidelines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. While there has been brief discussion on the article talk page, it has not been substantive or extensive, and further discussion might be useful. (Then again, it might not, but we have to try.) The filing party has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page after reading the original research policy, the medical reliable sources policy, and other policies. (Also, usually User:Doc James and User:Jytdog are right about policy, and they are worth listening to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'm trying to add a few additional items to the "Literature" section of the article, which contains a list of books which involve the psychological disorder that's the subject of the article.
The provided references for two of them are to Amazon pages which describe the books and explicitly state their connection to the disorder. The other editors assert that merely by providing those references, I am performing "original research", and that I must instead find other sources that assert the connection. I don't believe that that's "original research" as Wikipedia uses the term.
A third item is sourced in a note by the author of one of those books, which she posted to a mailing list about her books. While the medium is a mailing list, the note is by the author herself; she regularly posts on that list. I have trouble believing that the information is unreliable just because the medium is a mailing list.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to discuss it on Jytdog's talk page; they referred me to the Talk page of the article.
How do you think we can help?
Please clarify the term "original research" as Wikipedia uses it, and whether it applies in this case. Determine if information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable regardless of the author of that information.
Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This has not been sufficiently discussed at the talk page for DR to happen yet. The OP has not really engaged there. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Doc James
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We need secondary sources that discuss the literature about BPD. We do not ourselves simple pick primary sources and than add our opinions about them as that is original research. The content we are discussing is this. Amazon is user generated content not quality secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Borderline personality_disorder discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.
Closed for various reasons, including as outside the scope of this noticeboard and as questionably filed. The filing editor says that they are willing to let a third party decide, but a third party, MarchJuly, has already said that if User:Diannaa says that it was a copyright violation, it probably was a copyright violation. So now a fourth party says that if User:Diannaa and User:MarchJuly say that it was a copyright violation, it was a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. This noticeboard is not the forum to question an administrator's opinion about a copyright violation. The filing party is advised to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse, who will explain (possibly in great detail) about copyright violation. The filing party is also reminded that copyright violations can result in being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Me and Diannaa are disagreeing over if an edit I made to Train horn was a copyright violation. Diannaa says that it's a violation since I used the actual descriptions provided by the source in the table, instead of rewording them. I contest this because
A. The source is cited.
B. It's short information that is barely a sentence.
C. The offending text is the actual language of the standard.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've tried discussing it, but honestly I don't think we're resolving it because we both think we're right.
How do you think we can help?
A. Who's right here. We both think we're right so I think we should kick it to a third party who can assess that independently. B. If it is a copyright violation, then'd I still want access to my original edit to make it compliant, since otherwise I will have remake the table again, which given only a small part of it was said by Diannaa to be in violation, it feels like an over-reaction, combined with the lack of being provided an opportunity to fix it in the first place.
Summary of dispute by Diannaa
The following is copied from my talk page: The addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright violation and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. As you can see, each description is identical to the source document. There's no reason why the content could not be re-written to comply with copyright law and the copyright policy of this website. For example "To give a warning to anyone on or near a running line" becomes "Used to warn anyone on or near the tracks that a train is coming". "To give an urgent warning to anyone on or dangerously near to the line" becomes "A more urgent warning used when a person is in imminent danger". And so on. I can send you the deleted material via email if you like, but you will have to activate your Wikipedia email first. Copyright violations are a serious problem with legal considerations, and must be dealt with promptly. It's not an occasional problem: there's anywhere from 75 to 100 potential violations to be assessed each day. Since there's only a very small group of people working on copyright cleanup, discussion of each individual violation is not practical, and for clear-cut violations it is not necessary. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not discussed recently. Maybe this is the same question that was asked three years ago. If so, it still hasn't been discussed recently. When the template asks whether there has been recent talk page discussion, it is asking whether there has been significant recent talk page discussion. The filing party is advised to register an account if they want to engage in dispute resolution. The filing party is also advised to follow the instructions and actually try to discuss this on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Up at the top of this page, it says, "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." This has sat idle for going on three years, so there is no active, unresolved dispute over the question of whether or not to remove an explanatory footnote that says "The Chinese Flying Pigeon bicycle, with on the order of 500 million in service as of 2007, is the most produced vehicle ever. See Koeppel, Dan (January–February 2007), "Flight of the Pigeon", Bicycling, Rodale, Inc., vol. 48 no. 1, pp. 60–66, ISSN 0006-2073, retrieved January 28, 2012" from Honda Super Cub. It's related to the paragraph on this topic at Vehicle#Most common vehicles in use, explaining where the Super Cub is in relation to these similar superlatives. This footnote was there back in November 2014 when it was reviewed and promoted to Good Article.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I remain dissatisfied with other editors' unwillingness to make it clear on the Riot shield page that throwing projectiles at the police (or indeed, at anyone) is illegal - indeed, to the point of being a felony in many places. I do not think acknowledging this is an unreasonable request, and believe that some way could and should be worked out to say something along these lines in a way which respects everything else on the page. Other editors have, however, gone out of their way to deal with me in a rude fashion for expressing my concerns, and have shown no interest in finding a method of resolving the dispute.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I was told my edit to rectify the matter was "unsourced". Believing it was likely, on the basis of my previous interaction, that any attempt I would make to source my edit would be called "original research", I chose to cite the Wikipedia page on "criminal rock throwing", which established the illegality of throwing rocks in numerous jurisdictions. I think it's obvious, given that rocks are a typical projectile thrown at police, that this is relevant. This was also dismissed.
How do you think we can help?
The comments made in response to my edits are sophistries rather than attempts to guide better editing - they are made to defeat me, not to make Wikipedia better. If my edit is "unsourced", what would be an acceptable source? If my edit is "editorial" because I used the words "of course", why not eliminate those words then? If "Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia", is that a claim that the sources accepted on that page are being rejected on this one, and if so, why? What can I do _right_?
Summary of dispute by Freikorp
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Contrary to the above claim, Zachary Klaas DID NOT try to discuss this issue on the article's talk page. I specifically stated my case about why I think his edit in inappropriate on the talk page here: [4]. For reasons unknown to me, Zachary Klass chose not to reply to my concerns and instead started this dispute resolution.
We repeatedly explained to Zachary Klass why his edits could not be accepted, pointing to relevant guidelines like WP:CIRCULAR. If he had of actually taken the time to read said guidelines he wouldn't have had to resort to opening up a dispute resolution for the purpose of having someone explain to him why "Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia".
To recap the events that have brought us here: Zachary Klass made his opinions known, and a consensus was reached against him. Being angry with this, he then resorted to adding disclaimers to the article, explicitly stating his motivation for doing so was spite: [5]. He then violated WP:BRD when his edit was reverted, ignoring a request to discuss the matter and instead chose to start an edit war. When Drmies threatened to block him if he continued with his "disruptive editing, willfully adding original research, editorial commentary and edit warring", he resorted to wasting more of everyone else's time by opening this ridiculous dispute. I have tried to assume good faith, but it appears Zachary Klaas only wants to be disruptive for the purpose of being disruptive. I suggest resolving this dispute by temporarily blocking Zachary Klaas from editing, thereby giving Wikipedia a break from his persistent disruption and also giving him some time to think about his behavior.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not quite sure what this person's agenda is, though I warned them that continued edit warring (inserting OR commentary) will lead to a block. I am reminded of those warning labels one finds in the US--the kind that tell you that water is gluten-free. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Observation by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
As someone totally uninvolved in this dispute, I have read the summaries given so far as well as the relevant section of the talk page. My conclusion is that User:Zachary Klaas should be directed to Wikipedia's policies on original research and disruptive editing (including its explanatory supplement on tendentious editing).
I would like to point out that Freikorp has suggested on the Talk page for Riot shield that perhaps non-tendentious wording is possible for adding an acknowledgment that throwing projectiles at police is illegal. That is a productive suggestion, can we perhaps look at a solution to this problem along those lines? Zachary Klaas (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There now has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. This appears to be a one-against-many case with the filing party in a minority. If so, the filing party is advised either to accept the judgment of the majority or to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I read the one-against-many page you linked and I believe that is where things stand at the moment. I also note that this page you linked suggests that it is sometimes the case that a consensus at the level of the page is not very stable, as pages sometimes attract like-minded people, which I believe is the case here. I would also like to point out that one individual suggested a solution to this specific problem that would have met my concerns, but now we are apparently not going to entertain that solution. I don't think we should grasp disagreement out of the jaws of a potential agreement like that, but then again, maybe that's another minoritarian opinion I have, I don't know. My view is that this still has not been adequately addressed. I don't understand the comment about my not notifying the editors. Both of the editors with whom I had a dispute (Freikorps and Drmies) responded above - evidently they received notification. It is also the case that Freikorp notified numerous others on the Talk Page for the Riot shield page that he had ongoing issues with me. I think people are pretty well informed there is a controversy. If you believe I have not notified the broad community of editors, however, perhaps that is your reason for suggesting a Request for Comments. Therefore, I will take that as the next step. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Zachary Klaas, for future reference you're supposed to notify other editor on their talk pages when you bring up a dispute of any kind against them somewhere, not just put it on the talk page of the article in question. I wasn't sure if Drmies was watching the article in question, and I noticed you didn't notify him, so I took it upon myself to ping him here in my comment. It should have been your responsibility to notify him directly, not mine. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. It's still the case that no one who needed to respond did not respond, so I don't see how the second point Robert McClenon raised is any longer relevant, and it comes off sounding like throwing in an additional (irrelevant) reason to scold me for daring to disagree with other people. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. All discussions at this noticeboard should be preceded by discussion on the article talk page. A very brief statement on a user talk page is not sufficient. The editors should discuss the issue at length on the article talk page, Talk: Yahweh. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a sentence on the “Yahweh” page that reads “The Israelites were originally Canaanites, but Yahweh does not appear to have been a Canaanites god”
The issue is with the first half of the sentence “the Israelites were originally Canaanites..”
It is a contended position and one that i edited out, the editor General Ization re edited, and asked to list source, i misunderstood, but eventually did list a source for the contention that Israel and Canaan were seperate people groups
“Many contend that Israelites were originally Canaanites, though a recent study on the DNA of ancient skeletons from Canaanite cities in the Levant, found that the Canaanite genetic marker can be found in modern day Lebanese, not Israelites; which brings credence tonthe idea that they were two distinct people groups.”
Or something to that affect
his response was “still not intersted, thanks”
And he continues to re edit the sentence as before, despite the evidence that the information is contested
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to just edit the first part of the sentence out, no replacement
How do you think we can help?
View the source and if it is found as legitimate, tell General Ization that it is, at the least, a contentious position and should be worded differently
Summary of dispute by General Ization
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This IP's contributions to the page Yahweh consist of two content deletions ([6],[7]) with only the first having any edit summary, that being "Deleted contentious content". If the IP is claiming responsibility for the previous two edits to this article by two other IPs ([8],[9]), one of which also persistently posted on my Talk page, then the IP is edit warring (and has violated 3RR) over this content. At no time has the IP cited any source accompanying their edits for their alternative content, nor participated in any discussion at Talk:Yahweh (the appropriate place to discuss proposed changes to that article, rather than my Talk page). The edits have now been reverted to the consensus version by three other editors, including Katolophyromai who provided a lengthy explanation on their Talk page as to why the IP's edits are not appropriate, prior to the edits made using this IP. General IzationTalk 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. The filing unregistered editor has posted a few vague complaints about the overall tone, but has not made any specific suggestions for improving the article. The filing unregistered editor should either edit the article and discuss on the talk page, or propose specific edits on the talk page. Also, registering an account is strongly recommended. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but there hasn't been any editing yet. If discussion fails because the other party does not engage or does not discuss, read this paper. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The page 'hasidic judaism' would benefit from some form of mediation; the page as a whole reads as a religious text. My view is that Wikipedia should not be in the position of deciding which religious views are "heresies" and which are not, while 'AddMore-III' seems to view the page as a chapter in the Talmud.
Unfortunately all attempts to discuss it on the talk page and on his page have so far been one sided.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Posting on his page
How do you think we can help?
Any third party willing to talk about Hasidic Judaism in history and in the present, on the talk page, would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by AddMore-III
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Hasidic Judaism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same sources.
This edit was made on the trans woman page without any preceding discussion.
08:43, 19 October 2016 Picture of a Sunny Day (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY)
Previous definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman.
Current definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on trans man talk page by the current author and by others on the trans woman page.
Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The filing user has failed to provide any RS on the article's talk page. Much of the talk page discussion has been taken up by explaining the basics of Wikipedia to the user. If the user still doesn't understand that their own arguments based on their own opinions does not mandate change on Wikipedia, I'd recommend they use the Help Desk more.
As explained on the article's talk pages multiple times, the sources fully support the current wording, even if they don't pedantically repeat the exact same phrase.
The former lede of the article (from 2016) was not previously mentioned as part of the proposed change, but it's being presented here as the central part of the dispute. Introducing a new argument, unpersuasive as it is, at this late point suggests shifting goal posts. If we cannot define the dispute, we cannot resolve it, and therefore this is a non-starter. Also, as far as I can tell, neither TaylanUB, nor Equinox, nor MollyMac13 have edited either Trans man or Talk:Trans man, making their invitations appear to be canvassing. Spreading drama from other similar articles is disruptive, to put it mildly. For these reasons, I'm extremely reluctant to lend legitimacy to what I see as WP:CIVILPOV, and have no desire to participate further. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Rivertorch
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Equinox
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think that any kind of argument, regardless of its scientific backing etc., is going to work here. It's too politicised and it's one of the few areas where Wikipedia is not neutral. I don't have any particular issue with trans men or trans women but it's strange to me that the articles seem to assume that transgender is the norm (ignoring e.g. "TERF" attitudes) whereas e.g. Criticism of Christianity gets an entire article. Equinox◑02:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TaylanUB
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have to broadly agree with Equinox above; this issue seems extremely politicized, and the majority of the involved editors too indulged in their ideology. The page on man clearly states that a man is a male person, where male is defined in the usual biological way we all (hopefully) know. This corresponds with common use and scientific use of the words. The trans man page is in direct contradiction with these definitions. I find it particularly telling that the section titled "Confusion reigns" of the trans man talk page was locked under the claim that it's "pseudoscientific trolling at worst." Apparently, everything on the male page on Wikipedia is pseudoscience now, and not thinking so is trolling? See also this past state of my user page, in which I had documented a ton of biased behavior on the part of editors who could be assumed to be in support of the worldview of the contemporary transgender movement. It took me a long time and a ton of stubbornness to establish that the most popular feminist website of Canada is, in fact, a reliable source about feminist viewpoints. Imagine that.
Getting back to this particular topic, I think Userwoman stood behind their position quite well. It seems that none of the opposing editors were able to cite a source that clearly states that trans men are men. Instead, they seem to have flooded the talk page with irrelevant content from the cited sources, personal conjecture, references to theories put forth by individual sociologists, or to sociological theories whose bearing to the topic is rather questionable, and so on. The lead section should summarize the topic in terms that are factual and not ideological. Trans men are people who are assigned female at birth, generally because they are/were female, who profess to identify as male. It's amazing how complicated people are making this.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been extensive talk page discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Also, this noticeboard is not always suitable for resolving a dispute with a very large number of editors. If discussion on the article talk page has not worked, a Request for Comments may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the filing party failed to notify the other editors of this filing, although they had more than 72 hours after the failure to notify was mentioned. Second, this noticeboard isn't really the best forum to resolve disputes in which 9 editors have been identified. Normally a Request for Comments works better when there are a large number of editors. The editors are advised that they may resume discussion on the article talk page, and any editor may post a neutrally worded Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in wording the RFC if I am requested to do so (on my user talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Userwoman - In looking over the contributions of the other participants, I see that you did provide a cryptic notification. I didn't recognize it as a notification on the first review of your thread, and I didn't recognize it as a notification on the review of your thread to see whether I should close it. (You just said "FYI" with a diff, although there is a template for the purpose, or a note can be used. I don't think it was a very good effort at notification, but I am re-opening the thread.) It is still my opinion that DRN is not the best forum for issues involving large numbers of editors, and that a Request for Comments is in order instead. I will leave the thread open to see if a volunteer will accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I wasn't aware that the notification had a formal template available. If you prefer, I can repost the template on each author's page again, but I think that several have responded because they received the notice. If no one will volunteer to moderate this thread, I will submit a request for comments. Thank you for reopening the thread. Userwoman (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Is this a one-against-many dispute, or many-to-many? If the former, then I am not really sure that this noticeboard is the best way for one editor to continue to push their position. (I am aware that DRN is a common next stop in one-against-many disputes, but I am not aware of it being a useful next stop.) If the latter, then either formal mediation or a Request for Comments might work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it does seem to be a many against many dispute. Several editors have brought up the same issue that I am currently bringing up, but at different times, so they were dismissed because a consensus could not be reached. I think that it is unfortunate that no discussion took place to justify the initial change and I am posting here because I think that this discussion is still valuable and necessary. If no progress can be made here, I will look into your suggestions. Thank you for your time. Userwoman (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not adequately discussed, and for other reasons, the same as four days ago. The filing party has made some vague complaints on the article talk page, but has not made any specific suggestions for improvement of the article. Attempting to tag the article as NPOV is not a substitute for making specific suggestions to improve the article The filing party is advised again to make useful suggestions for improving the article, and is reminded that edit-warring to tag an article more than three times in 24 hours is considered disruptive editing. The filing party is also advised to register an account. The filing party is advised to propose specific improvements. The other editors are advised to consider requesting semi-protection if the edit-warring to tag the article non-constructively continues. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Although there are other issues, including mention of this film, however briefly, will go a long way towards establishing NPOV. AddMoreIII claims mentioning it is "advertising" but I have no connection to the film; nor was my suggested edit in any way written in "Advertising" language. I only want a balanced portayal of a modern, living religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5FC0:7B:5CE9:9484:A3EC:E71A (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried to discuss with both editors; the following editor told me to "go fly a kite"
יניב הורון
while AddMore-III made personal attacks.
How do you think we can help?
I would like comment in general on the talk page about NPOV regarding my banner notice.
Summary of dispute by AddMore-III
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by יניב הורון
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Hasidic Judaism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the purpose of this noticeboard is to try to address content disputes by discussion. The filing party does not appear to want to discuss, but appears only to want a soapbox. Second, the filing party has been range-blocked for disruptive posts (including this one - the range was blocked shortly after this request was filed). (Also, if the filing party agrees that the denialism is contradicted by the evidence, why delete that phrase?) If the filing party wants to engage in serious discussion, they can register an account (and comply with any discretionary sanctions). If disruption resumes (e.g., from a different range), semi-protecting the talk page should be considered. While unusual, semi-protection of a talk page has been done in the past in cases of tendentious posts on pseudo-science by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a sentence in the article that breaks the Neutral point of view rule. The fact that scientific evidence contradicts HIV denialism is established in a lot of places throughout the article. That's why I think that, at least in the first sentence of the lead, it should not say "contradicted by evidence". It should only state what HIV denialism is. As it is now, it gives the impression that Wikipedia editors are taking sides on the matter, instead of uploading encyclopedic content.
User Ian.thomson went as far as subjecting edits to the article to review prior to publication
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Just talking in the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
By checking all the instances in the HIV denialism article where it says that this denialism is contradicted by science. It will be clear that there is already due weight. Then, say so in the corresponding thred in the Talk page and allow the deletion of "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence" in the lead.
Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
OP's edits to the article and posts to the talk page (especially Archive 13) make it abundantly clear that they're trying to water down the scientific consensus however they can. If WP:FRINGE and WP:Lunatic charlatans weren't the case, it'd be WP:1AM and WP:NOTHERE. If OP was a registered user then someone would have thrown discretionary sanctions for alternative medicine and pseudoscience at them weeks ago. This has been going on since the beginning of April. There's nothing to do here but encourage OP to find another outlet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I cite WP:INFOBOXFLAG to allow for use of flag in infobox in human geographical articles. Caradhras claims that the addition of flag in infobox is nationalistic agenda of sockpuppet and thus should be reverted. However, the flags in the articles in question Shanghai, Wuhan and Beijing have longstanding had a flag in the infobox. Caradhras cites that consistency across articles is necessary as majority of cities in China on WP do not have flags in infobox. I say most major cities do
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Spoke on the talk page
How do you think we can help?
Give a third opinion and assist in preventing an edit war
Summary of dispute by CaradhrasAiguo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
For the sockpuppets in question, refer to the relevant investigation. This sockpuppeteer has also openly admitted to socking, further demonstrating the WP:POINTy nature of his edits. I have not formally reported his latest batch of IPs because the latest 2 batches that were reported have been ignored.
As to the timeline of the flags being included in the infoboxes, I would describe none of them as "longstanding", considering the age of Wikipedia as a whole: Beijing (4 Jul 2016 by a single-purpose account), Shanghai (22 Aug 2016 by a single-purpose account), Wuhan (18 Feb 2018). All 3 edits were unexplained. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Waddie96 and CaradhrasAiguo: Thanks for resorting to DRN to avoid an edit war. I've taken up this case because this is something I frequently come across while editing articles related to military history. I'll go through all the discussions and put forward an opening statement by the end of tomorrow. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waddie96 and CaradhrasAiguo: Here goes my opening statement. Let us all keep WP:5P5 in mind throughout this discussion. So no rule or no manual of style guideline mandates or enforces anything. Everything exists just to help us to build a better encyclopedia. As per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes" So it is clear that the guideline neither restricts nor mandates use of flags in the infoboxes of relevant articles. Having said that, if any editor adds one, it doesn't need to be removed, unless the article is about a controversial or disputed place. However excessive use all over the article must be restricted. Now getting specific to the articles involved in this dispute, it is OK to add flag icons to Shenyang and Chengdu articles, and the edit can be made by anyone, an experienced editor or a IP account. Our concern must be whether the edit is appropriate or not, but not the account. Even though it is a sock puppet account, if the edits made are not violating any policies, they need not be reverted. However, this edit summary is not right. So such an edit can be reverted. But we ought not to consider that the statement applies to all the edits made by the respective account. As far as the consistency across articles of a particular region is concerned, it is generally about the language, use of specific terms such as "China" and "People's Republic of China", insertion of native language scripts, quote styles etc. but not the use of flagicons. Also consistency in an article is the key, not over a group of articles. I say this because, there may be many editors involved over a group articles, than there are for one. So achieving consistency over a group is always tough, and is compulsorily not required, except for defined guidelines (for example, consistency may be checked for points mentioned at WP:MOS-ZH, but not for each and every aspect). Also if it is felt that such practice is not observed in China-related articles, it also doesn't mandate that new changes should not be made. This is relevant to both WP:OSE and WP:IAPD. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, is introducing a blanket ban on infobox flag usage (for mainland articles) at WP:MOS-ZH a productive way forward? CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: I don't want to comment on its productiveness, because unlike content additions or citations, such edits are almost towards the edge of "no profit and no loss". Because nothing terrible is going to happen even if there is a flag with the name, or there isn't. Assuming good faith, having a flagicon might help a bit in identifying the country, faster and easier in some cases. In my personal opinion, I don't think such a ban would be necessary for China-related topics as many articles related to nations have flagicons. However if you feel that infobox flags should not be used in China-related articles, it is better to discuss it with a larger group, especially with editors working on China-related content, ideally on the talk page of WP:MOS-ZH involving WP:CHINA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion and assistance. What about removal of sockpuppet edit requests to Shanghai and Beijing? They are appropriate regardless of the fact that the IP requesting the edit is a sockpuppet? Waddie96 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not in terms of substance, no. But I have to say that if this sockpuppeteer were not hell=bent on following my edits, this would have not been a "dispute". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed for various reasons. First, ZH8000 has not replied, and participation here is voluntary. Second, attempting to use this noticeboard, which has volunteer moderators, for RFCs or ANI-style proposals, is disruptive. Third, the discussion on this noticeboard by third-party editors should be on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page, which has not been semi-protected. Any unregistered editors are strongly advised to register accounts. It really is useful. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. Report other disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
For clarity, I also edit under IP's starting with 93.(1...), my ISP changes my IP address daily. I've been editing WP for a while and using an IP instead of registering a username is my personal choice.
I have tried to insert a sentence detailing how Switzerland's motorway vignette (offered only on a expensive yearly basis) is the most expensive in Europe for tourists and transiting car drivers. As this was reverted by Swiss user ZH8000, I have tried to elaborate on the method I used -- comparing the cheapest vignettes offered in each country, as that is what a traveler passing through once will buy. I have provided a source confirming exactly that (essentially saying that Switzerland is the only country with only a yearly vignette, and that other countries which use vignettes instead of pay-by-km systems offer cheap short-term vignettes aimed at visitors). ZH8000 claims that my addition is not verifiable by that source. Over the course of the last few days I've reinstated the change with minor alterations trying to please ZH8000. He/she reinstated status quo each time.
IP user 86.153.135.111 has posted on the talk page agreeing with me and instated his/her own version and was also reverted. ZH8000 reported both of us for edit warring, also accusing us of being the same person, and also requested page protection on RFPP.
In order not to write the same thing again: I've provided a short overview of my logic here to EdJohnston. I was told by ZH8000 that my English is uncomprehensible, so please read that if my explanation here is too convoluted.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to discuss this on the article talk page, but the same points are being reiterated by both sides. Thus I don't believe that this discussion is moving forward.
How do you think we can help?
I think we'd all agree that this one sentence is a simple matter. As me and the other IP user can't seem to be able to find an agreement with ZH8000, I believe that a third party might have fortune in helping us along.
Summary of dispute by ZH8000
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 86.153.135.111
I found the claim by accident and a check of the reference that I provided as a replacement fully confirms that the claim is correct and comprehensible In both its versions. ZH8000 just deletes the claim and then just claims that he doesn't have to prove anything. I also didn't find this until after I had posted an edit request on the article talk page so apologies if I jumped the gun.
The main problem is that ZH8000 is not a native English speaker and claimed the original sentence was incomplete and incomprehensible (which it wasn't) and apparently misunderstood it as he started discussing yearly pricing (which no one else was discussing). ZH8000 seems to have a larger problem with competence in the English language and the English way of expressing things and even accuses everyone else of the incompetence. This seems to have led to a most of his past disputes. (was 86.153.135.111) but now 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JFG
Procedural note: I am uninvolved in this dispute; I noticed this thread because I watchlist the DR/N page and I live in Switzerland. — JFGtalk15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The IP editors cite a source that says:
[The Swiss vignette] is obligatory for all drivers of motor vehicles and trailers, whether they use the national road network once a year or every day. It was introduced in 1985 at a cost of CHF30 and this was increased to CHF40 in 1995, a level where it has remained ever since. […] Other countries which have a motorway tax sticker allow people to buy a cheaper, short-term vignette if they only use their motorways for a short time.
The article reflects those facts in the lead, saying:
In all countries except Switzerland short period vignettes are sold for visiting or transiting vehicles. In Switzerland visiting foreign motorists must buy an annual vignette to use the country's motorways.
So far, so good. Then IP editors argue that the cited source also supports their proposed article text:
As Switzerland only offers a CHF 40 yearly option, their vignette is the highest priced one in Europe for transiting and visiting passenger car drivers.
To further support this assertion, they quote the price of short-term vignettes in Austria and Czechia (€9 and €13). Editor ZH8000 argues that the cited source fails WP:Verification for this assertion, and that it should be thus deleted. An edit war ensued, complete with aspersions of not understanding English well enough to edit. Oops, not useful.
This looks to me like a simple case of WP:Synthesis, whereby IP editors use a combination of sources to make an assertion in wikivoice that no source has made. Even if they are right (which is debatable), this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If they want to make a point that Swiss motorways are more expensive than others, they should find sources that actually make this point themselves. Even then, I'm not sure that such a comparison would be encyclopedic. — JFGtalk15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment The edit that I provided does not use a combination of sources, but a single source. The ability to work out that the Swiss vignette is the most expensive for transiting cars is simply a matter of being able to perform simple subtraction. WP:CALC allows simple arithmetic of this type. Being able to compare the prices as the reference permits is not synthesis at all because the prices are there to compare. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
JFG, you claim that to look up a series of tables and see which number is the highest is synthesis. Even if that were true, consider this source alone, without the "cartolleu" reference which simply serves to re-verify its claim:
The European Union says that is talking with Switzerland about introducing an even shorter-stay vignette valid for a week or ten days.
Other countries which have a motorway tax sticker allow people to buy a cheaper, short-term vignette if they only use their motorways for a short time
If all other countries with vignettes allow people to buy a cheaper vignette, then how can Switzerland's shortest term vignette be anything but the most expensive one? (78.0.246) 93.136.22.175 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Alle anderen Länder mit Vignettenpflicht bieten die Möglichkeit an, ihre Autobahnen für kurze Zeit zu einem tieferen Preis zu nutzen. English: All other countries requiring vignettes allow short term use of their motorways at lower prices.
JFG made the comment, "An edit war ensued, complete with aspersions of not understanding English well enough to edit. Oops, not useful". Having studied the edit war and the talk page comments, I felt important to address that point because, I believe, that it is the fundamental reason that there is a dispute in the first place. The original contribution by 93.136.77.51 was (if poorly sourced - though a good source was provided in a subsequent revert).
Only offering a CHF 40 yearly option, Switzerland's vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers.
the sentence is logically incomplete (it is not quite clear what your message is, but probably because you don't even understand what the main message of your own statement ought to be)
To a native English speaker, such as my humble self, the sentence was both complete and comprehensible. On the talk page ZH8000 has clearly not comprehended it correctly because he launches into claiming that the point is wrong on the basis of the yearly cost of the vignettes.
The Swiss vignette is by far not the most expensive yearly toll road in Europe. Very easy examples are the Austrian one, it is more than double as expensive, or even the Czech one is more expensive
True as a statement (if very poor English), but not relevant to the point. ZH8000 also launches into a discussion of the cost per kilometre which is not useful either. 86.149.136.154 reverted the claim and reworded it to read (and now with the single reference that does support it)
As Switzerland only offers a CHF 40 (€35.75) yearly option, Their (sic) vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers. Other countries offer a vignette valid for much shorter periods, which cost less than the Swiss version.
Clear and completely comprehensible (though personally, I would tweak it slightly). 86.149.136.154 also posted on the talk page that the issue was over the cost of a car transiting the country, "...in a day or two" and not the yearly cost as ZH8000 had wrongly believed.
ZH8000 reverted it for the fifth time with the terse edit summary, "the same as before". That summary clearly shows that ZH8000 still believes that the pair of sentences are still referring to the yearly cost of vignettes throughout Europe. Either he has completely misunderstood the revised sentences, or he has neither read the talk page nor noticed that the claim has been rewritten. Being charitable, I would lean toward the latter. The only problem being that ZH8000 also said
The Swiss vignette is by far not the most expensive toll road in Europe for traversing a country; easily verifiable
but failed to provide any verification of the statement (even claiming " I do not have to proof (sic) anything"). A simple Google turns up a good many websites comparing vignette charges and all confirm that the Swiss "... vignette is the most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers". For example see [10] or [11] to name but two. Google turns up many more. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Vignette (road tax) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
While I don't find it necessarily important that Wikipedia track vignette pricing -- a changeable thing not well suited to an encyclopedia -- I will throw in my OR that the IP editors are correct in their comparison of Switzerland and Austria. The websites given as sources in the article support this as well. And I think it should be noted that ZH8000 has a long history of edit-warring and intractability in the face of being proved wrong, and has been blocked three times for it. Erictalk12:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Have either of the two unregistered editors considered registering accounts? It is not easy to conduct dispute resolution with IP addresses, which change periodically and are hard to remember. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Response: If an IP editor follows your advice once you have participated as an IP editor, they are instantly blocked with an accusation that the account has been created to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. But to be fair, the blocking admin did unblock once the reason for the creation was pointed out. TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
To provide an extra view. I found the closed edit request on the article talk page. I also found the extended and slow motion edit war in the article. I had a suspicion that the IP editors may be the same user, but to clear that up, I performed an extended node search and the IP addresses fall clearly into two groups of dynamic IPs with no common factor. They are two independent IPs in two different countries (UK and Croatia).
The reference provided in the edit request (and also the penultimate version of the claim) checks out completely and fully supports the point that the two IPs are making. I should observe that the original version of the claim was also supported, but I believe that the references supporting the linked components of the claim were swapped. It seems ZH8000 is of Swiss nationality and I just wonder if he does not want this particular slur on his country's taxation system documented (my opinion, for what it is worth). The point is valid and certainly belongs in the article.
Volunteer note - User:ZH8000 was notified of this filing more than 48 hours ago and has not commented. Since participation here is voluntary, this thread will be closed unless ZH8000 comments. (The comments by numerous other editors are not directly relevant.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal
I've come to believe that, after ZH8000's request to have the talk page protected so that my "disruption of serious reasoning" with "unsane nonsense" (sic) can be stopped, and the fact that the current state of the page is in his/her favor - it was probably too much to expect him/her to be willing to discuss here. Nevertheless I'm glad that other people are willing to see eye to eye and contribute new sources! So, how about this for the change:
As Switzerland only offers a CHF 40 (€35.75) yearly option, their vignette is the highest priced one in Europe for transiting and visiting passenger car drivers; other countries offer vignettes valid for shorter periods, which cost less than the Swiss version.[1][2][3]
I've added the "cartolleu" reference (in the article defined elsewhere [3]) last as, although it's obviously most up-to-date, it has been accused of synthesis. As TheVicarsCat points out, there is criticism of the Swiss vignette practice, for example on this site that he/she linked, so I think that not including anything at all about this is a mistake. (78.0.246.100) 93.136.66.22 (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
^Raaflaub, Christian (11 October 2013). "Motorway tax price hike causes controversy". Swissinfo.ch. Archived from the original on 21 May 2018. Retrieved 20 May 2018. It was introduced in 1985 at a cost of CHF30 and this was increased to CHF40 in 1995, a level where it has remained ever since. (...) Other countries which have a motorway tax sticker allow people to buy a cheaper, short-term vignette if they only use their motorways for a short time.{{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 22 May 2018 suggested (help)
^Raaflaub, Christian. "Soll die Autobahn-Vignette teurer werden?". SWI swissinfo.ch (in German). Archived from the original on 25 May 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2018. Alle anderen Länder mit Vignettenpflicht bieten die Möglichkeit an, ihre Autobahnen für kurze Zeit zu einem tieferen Preis zu nutzen.
Well what the hell is the way the business is done here?? Where do I put this? I'm getting tired of this, I've encountered clearer explanations and less bureaucracy in a court of law... 93.136.66.22 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as outside the scope of this noticeboard. While this did begin as a content dispute, it has become a conduct dispute with personal attacks, and we do not accept a case that involves current conduct issues. The editors are encouraged to resolve the conduct and content issues on the article talk page. They may report the conduct issues at WP:ANI but should read the boomerang essay first. If the editors really want to resolve the content issues and are willing to work with a more experienced mediator who will demand that they focus on content, they can request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I added:
- a properly referenced mention to some allegations by a former diplomat about the political party Citizens; this diplomat has a history of successfully uncovering intervention by foreign intelligence services in European affairs (see Talk page or here [12] or here Torture Biz: Selling Our Soul for Disinfo Rubbish|publisher=European Tribune)
- two recent events that happened in the same week, both of them having Carlos Carrizosa (member of said party) as a central figure.
User Impru20 has kept trying to erase both contributions and here is a succinct summary of what they have been engaged in:
- personal attacks (telling me to "keep it shut (sic)" and even underlining the so-called "advice", calling me "disruptive", inferring disingenuous intentions in my editing without even knowing me, etcetera) while at the same time ascribing personal attacks on me at the slightest excuse, for no reason since I've been labeling their actions, not them
- lying and making things up along the way, e.g. accusing me of altering contents I haven't altered or "present[ing] as a proven fact the unsourced opinion of a person", which I've never done, as well as taking things out of context and engaging in endless sophisms
- devoting endless barrages of text to disguise the fact that they cannot justify the crux of their argument; to wit, that I've presented opinions as facts. I haven't. I've labelled opinions by third parties as such, referenced them accordingly, and that user has not been able to justify in a sound manner why the opinion of Craig Murray is less valuable than the opinion of a Guardian or a "Noticias de Navarra" journalist.CodeInconnu (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Endless conversations in the Talk Page. They have become increasingly acerbic and I sense this is exactly what Impru20 wants.
How do you think we can help?
By convincing user Impru20 that his or her frequent invocation of misquoted and misused Wikipedia policies is not sufficient to erase those properly referenced texts.
Summary of dispute by Impru20
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It should be noted that this noticeboard is for content disputes only, yet this is also being seemingly brought to discuss editorial conduct. I will explain my case here, but the reporting user should know this is not the place for this:
The issue started when user CodeInconnu introduced contentious content in Citizens (Spanish political party). I initially removed the whole "Funding" section he created (maybe in a precipitated way), but I then resorted to creating a discussion in the talk page about the issue. From the very first comment, CodeInconnu engaged in personal attacking on me throughout the discussion: 1) Otherwise just stop being a nuisance. You're not in the Spanish wikipedia now. 2) The only tendentious party in this interaction is you. 3) continuously dubbing my texts as "parrafadas"; 4) no verbose tantrum on your behalf is going to change that; 5) I've read tons of arguments like yours and in real life, I've met people like you dime a dozen. You're practicing sophisms, not reading other people's replies carefully, instead reading them selectively, juggling with the object of the predicate, inserting lies or half-lies to bulk it up; 6) Your insistence that I'm trying to portray the party negatively, however, rings hollow, if not downright silly; surreptitiously inserting lies whenever you can; you're not the optimal mouthpiece for said position. It needs to be defended by someone more rigorous I'm afraid and so on. I requested him at multiple times throughout the discussion to stop using such expressions, to no avail.
CodeInconnu kept asking me for various evidence at different points of the discussion, which I did show, also explaining him about Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources and neutral point of view, as well as others. Throughout the entire discussions, he has not presented a single consistent argument (i.e. he first kept defending the introduction of some content referring to Anonymous releasing documents about Cs funding, then just stayed shut when it was made obvious to him that he had manipulated the sources to present content that wasn't in the sources he himself tried to put as evidence). In this DRN he talks about the issue of the Canet and the Catalan Parliament events: "two recent events that happened in the same week, both of them having Carlos Carrizosa (member of said party) as a central figure". These events are not connected, but this user re-wrote my edits two times to present these two events as if there was a connection between them through the intervention of Carrizosa (diffdiff), despite Carrizosa's "involvement" in the first event being limited to claim that Cs supporters had nothing to do with it. Some other issues have been solved with changes or outright removals of CodeInconnu's content in the article as false, innacurate or in open violation of NPOV and OR, yet CodeInconnu has been very aggressive with the Murray's issue: he claims that because Craig Murray is a former British ambassador, we must count his self-publications as reliable sources automatically. In particular, he tries to apply this to several statements published in Murray's personal blog in the web ([13]). I kept informing CodeInconnu several times about WP:RSSELF and WP:SELFPUBLISHED, which allow self-published expert sources to be considered reliable only when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. I asked CodeInconnu for providing such sources, and his behaviour has been to 1) not provide any sources, 2) defend the inclusion of such content on the basis of Murray's being a former diplomat, despite the fact that SELFPUBLISHED clearly establishes that such claims must be reassured by third party sources, and 3) keep pointing out other unrelated issues throughout the Citizens (Spanish political party) article, arguing that if some sources were to be preserved, then the Murray's bit should be preserved too; 4) resorting to complaining about further flaws within the article (also unrelated to the actual discussion) once previous flaws were solved (i.e. the bit about the "Noticias de Navarra" source, which he did not like, then resorted to attack the new sources (Financial Times and The Economist) putting their reliability in doubt (despite he himself having made a staunch defense of newspapers as reliable sources earlier in the discussion). He then pretended to argue that the sources did not say what they actually said, just as much as he previously pretended to argue that his previous sources did say what they did not say. The Murray's issue is the main point of friction right now.
On this, I would like to highlight that, in his dispute resolution entry, CodeInconnu has introduced a Washington Post source (which btw, requires me for a suscription to read) which he did not provide in the whole discussion despite my repeated calls for him to show third party sources about Murray. He does likewise with the European Tribune source (though that leads to a non-existant page). This really infuriates me, because he could have showed them before if his will was to reach a compromise, but he is showing them now as a further attempt to undermine any attempt of successful compromise back at the article. This is just pure malice and bad faith.
During the whole ordeal I even tried to reach a compromise with him, but each time I wanted to agree on something or I asked him for sources, he either replied with outright insulting and personal attacks and accusations (most of the time) or provided sources which, when checked, actually disproven his own claims. For his actions, I repeteadly told him to please stop adding biased content to the article/alterating sources/presenting truthful facts in a partisan and negative light for the party.
As a summary: The discussion has gone badly. Very badly. There is no point of agreement in sight and it seems there will never be. We've reached the point where we have both engaged in edit warring and where we have both violated WP:3RR, and I'm just tired of all of it. This user has not acted in good faith during the whole issue, and it just seems he has acted like this to infuriate me, get me out of my nerves, to have an excuse for bringing me here. If that was his aim, well, he was successful at it. Nonetheless, I feel really disgusted to receive such a treatment from an obvious disruptor. I will engage in this dispute resolution if no other, most severe punishment is applied to us (engaging in such a fierce edit warring, I understand that we should probably receive a block each. In such a case, I would willingly accept it, as I am aware our behaviour has been far from exemplary). Nonetheless, if this dispute resolution resumes, I just wish for CodeInconnu to stop his personal attacks on me and to ignore me in Wikipedia from now on, as well as for a third, independent party to actually check what is going on at Citizens (Spanish political party): I am disengaging from the discussion there and I am refraining from making further edits there in the short term. I've already got heated up enough with this whole ordeal and, seriously, I don't think any person should be treated like this in any discussion. Cheers. Impru20talk20:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Citizens (Spanish political party) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note = Unfortunately, both parties appear to be framing this as a conduct dispute, in that each of them is alleging conduct violations by the other. This noticeboard does not handle conduct disputes. The editors may discuss article content on the article talk page. If content discussions are inconclusive, the editors may bring a content dispute here. This thread will be closed as a conduct dispute unless it is clarified promptly to be about article content. If either party wishes to pursue a conduct issue, they should read the boomerang essay and then go to WP:ANI, which may result in either or both parties being blocked or sanctioned. Content can be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the whole affair came as a result of a content dispute. So far, it would be the already mentioned "Murray's issue". It transformed into a conduct dispute, but the essential core of it was content. In principle I have chosen to disengage from any discussion with the other party, but if he/she shows willingness to discuss such a content dispute in a civil way, I would try to make a last attempt at discussing it. Impru20talk21:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
a very important statement, supported by numerous outside reliable sources and by Wikipedia itself. the section i added described the important work of Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and his contribution to the development of the function. these show clearly,the early stages of the method.i also want to add al Bruni contribution at the same section supported by another source ill provide.
this piece of information is based and supported.should be included at the history of function article for all wikipedia users.
Summary of dispute by Wcherowi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have been trying to help Roneln understand what a reliable secondary source is by analyzing the sources he has come up with and pointing out their faults. I have not yet broached the topic of WP:SYNTH, trying to deal with the easier concepts first. I actually hope that he can find a reliable source so that I can spend more time on other projects.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Coordinator note - Hello Roneln. Before proceeding any further, it is required that you notify Wcherowi on his talk page by posting this template. See the instructions at the top of the page. Thank you. Biblio (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Roneln and Wcherowi: Upon reviewing the talk page discussion, it seems to me that the "Stages in the History of Algebra" article is the source being discussed. The question is whether Sharaf was the first to develop the concept of the function.
The article does not make the explicit statement that Sharaf invented the function. However, it does describe his work on x3+d=bx2 as "this attempt in Islam to move to 'functions'" (see page 192). Since it uses the term "move to," it does imply to me that Sharaf was a pioneer in the use of functions, at least in the context of Islamic mathematics. He may not have been the sole inventor, but he was a contributor.
In the Wikipedia article, I suggest that we describe Sharaf's work on x3+d=bx2, and then say something like: "Sharaf's analysis of this equation was a notable development in Islamic mathematics with regard to the use of functions, but his work was not widely appreciated at the time."
i also agree with that statement,and that's exactly what i meant when i tried to add this section.sharaf pioneer work for me marked the birth and first breakthrough in functions concept, but maybe a bit ahead of his time because it wasn't followed until the 17th century.Roneln (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.