Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:19, 6 February 2013

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
RRR	Closed	SaibaK (t)	5 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

John Lurie

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Reverend Eccles on 22:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

John Lurie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Reverend Eccles (talk · contribs)
Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is with the sentence in the lead, "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006." As I've tried explaining to Binksternet on his talk page, this sentence does not summarize a key point in the article. It's already included in the Painting section, and should not be included in the lead. Further, John Lurie is not a primitivist painter. Bear Surprise is distasteful, and it doesn't represent his painting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Binksternet and I have discussed the issue on his UserTalk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please remove the sentence "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006" from the lead.

Opening comments by Binksternet

I hold that the lead section guideline, WP:LEAD, indicates that all major points of a person's biography that are covered in the article body should be mentioned in the lead section. To define "major" in this case, I think that anything worthy of an article on Wikipedia is worthy of mention in the opening paragraphs. There are three articles specifically based on the career of John Lurie: the Lounge Lizards, Bear Surprise and Fishing with John. All three of these should be mentioned in the lead section regardless of whether they are representative of the artist's work. A very notable work such as Bear Surprise does not have to be representative, or in good taste, to be important to the artist's biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lurie discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. After reading your initial comments, I can state that the main point of contention is the worthiness of the inclusion of that specific sentence into the lead. I will take a look at both user's talk pages before further commenting on this issue. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
_{Pinged participants. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for hearing the dispute. Just to reiterate, I'm not disputing the inclusion of the Bear Surprise internet meme in the article, just in the lead section. Again, the painting isn't primitivist, and the sentence isn't a key point in the article. Reverend Eccles (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. From your comments, I see that we have several points: The importance of the painting, its inclusion on the lead, and if it's primitivist or not. We can deal with the first and third before jumping to the big one, the second. I think this is the best way to solve this dispute. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. According to Wikipedia's article on primitivism, it is "a Western art movement that borrows visual forms from non-Western or prehistoric peoples." Bear Surprise is clearly a post-modern cartoon. As shown in the photo of Lurie's serious painting in the Painting section, it isn't indicative of the bulk of his work. In light of the rest of his career (music, film, television, art exhibits in museums all over the world), Bear Surprise is unimportant. Reverend Eccles (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Surprise is important no matter what kind of painting style we determine it to be. Bear Surprise is important no matter whether it is indicative of Lurie´s larger body of work. Bear Surprise is important because it was extremely popular in Russia and became an internet meme. It is that simple. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the painting style can only be determined using reliable sources; otherwise it would be considered original research. On the point of level of importance, I can see how the meme thing highlighted the painting even if it was not important before. We can further explore that, I think. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source calling it primitivist. The meme is mentioned in the Painting section, and that's not being disputed. But it's not key to John Lurie or his career, and has no place in the lead. Reverend Eccles (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the use of the term 'primitivist' was taken from this Moscow Times article, which is the citation for the Bear Surprise line in the Painting section. It says that Lurie's style "can be called primitivist or naive", but it doesn't specifically apply either of those terms to Bear Surprise (or any other individual painting). CarrieVS (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd have to find another source that names it as primitivist, or remove the claim as unsourced. I think that this solves this issue. Going back to the other one, I'd like to see a more deep argumentation from both parties as to why it should or shouldn't be included on the lead. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have "deep" argument; I have very simple argument. Three of Wikipedia's articles are based on the career of John Lurie, and all three of these should be mentioned in the lead section. This argument follows the WP:LEAD guideline which says, among other things, that the lead section should "explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Bear Surprise helps to establish Lurie's notability, and is one of his most important works. The guideline also says "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject." None of Lurie's paintings except Bear Surprise has received widespread notice. Thus, the painting is especially important to his painting career, whether he likes it or not. Finally, LEAD says that for BLPs, "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm." We should certainly not overemphasize the painting Bear Surprise but then again we should not suppress its mention. The painting must be mentioned in the lead section if the LEAD guideline is to be followed. Note that following the LEAD guideline is a key part of WP:WIAGA, the list of requirements for a Good Article. There is no way to have a Good Article without accepting LEAD as a valid guideline. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that WP:LEAD not be followed. We just need to come to an agreement about whether this painting is one of the most important points, and whether it does establish notability. So,

"None of Lurie's paintings except Bear Surprise has received widespread notice. Thus, the painting is especially important to his painting career." ~~Binksternet

Let's discuss that. It certainly seems reasonable to me, but we should remember that painting is only a part of Lurie's career, so something important to his painting career might not be automatically important overall. CarrieVS (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with that. We are discussing the work of an arist, notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. This particular artist has gained a good deal of notablitlity with his painting. His work with different media will certainly be a large part of his overall importance as an artist...which is what makes the figure notable, but the artwork has become a good part of his lifework even if it seems somewhat recent. I should make a couple of observations. The article itself is only start class, so whether or not to follow suggested MOS WP:LEAD guideline may or may not help to improve the article at this point. I do agree that the paining is not primitivism but disagree that the source was not referring to it as such. They were discussing the artist's style in reference to his range in painting specifically. If the author of the source is an expert in the field we can leave the mention but, it has to be attributed to the author and source. A discription of what the artist's work is, analysis of it etc, all require multiple reliable sourcing because this is a BLP article.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

The line of prose as it currently reads is badly written and is actually inaccurate: "His primitivist painting Bear Surprise became an internet meme in Russia in 2006.". The painting did not become an internet meme. The decscription of the work as "primitivism" is simply not being made by an expert in art, art theory or even media. The author, Victor Sonkin is a "scholar specializing in verse theory and Slavic literature" [1]. I would not use this source to label the work's style as fact. It should be attributed to the author and source as opinion (as they are not experts and even experts can be wrong). I would prefer this not be included at the top of the article. A scholar in literature is not the author to use in the lead (and it really should be referenced in the lead if used) to describe the work of a visual artist. The article itself mentions the painting was the inspiration to a Russian internet meme, but it was very localized and not something that may be notable enough for the lead section from the tiny, one sentence mention in the article. At this point I am inclined to support the removal from the lead entirely. There is no reason "Bear Surprise" cannot be mentioned in the lead and I agree that it is important enough a work to be mentioned along with the artist's work in music and television, just not the way it is at the moment. Binksternet, can you propose some different prose?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have analyzed this a bit further and I reached this conclusions:

The Bear Surprise painting has to be mentioned in the lead.
The fact that it became an internet meme may not necessarily be mentioned, unless it is proven to be highly important.
The "primitivist" claim, made by a single source, should be moved outside the lead and attributed as a personal opinion instead of a fact, because to be a fact, it has to be mentioned by many sources and regarded as it.

I am inclined to accept not a removal, but a rewording of the sentence. Any thoughts? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Ryanspir on 16:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Medical uses of silver (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim. 2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs.

Opening comments by Zad68

1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Doc James

A great deal has been written on Wikipedia about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk [2] and there is definitely some of that. I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review [3] which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed.

However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion

not relevant to discussion
user:Zad does not appear to exist. Certainly, that user has no contributions so can't be involved in this dispute. There is a Zad68 who appears to have been involved, and I've changed 'users involved' appropriately. Zad68 has been notified. CarrieVS (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, all of you.

As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right?

I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources.

What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source.

It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reasoning

According to:

"It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)" (From the relevant RSN discussion)

Quackwatch is considered as provocative and containing of self-published articles. Here I'll provide reliable primary and secondary available sources:

Current research on nanosilver

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18069039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17468052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18854209 - However the third article PMID 18854209 is a recent review article in a MEDLINE-indexed peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor. In my opinion, that article is worth looking into and possibly using in this article. (By Zad)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141039

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523420

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22286985

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22654516 - Cites http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21839058.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20730806 - A recent 2012 review - secondary source. Peer-reviewed medline indexed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22117785 - Dental oriented 2011 review.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22029522 - Coping with antibiotic resistance: combining nanoparticles with antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. Secondary source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23163208 - Synergy between novel antimicrobials and conventional antibiotics or bacteriocins. Secondary source. "..examines the enhancement of antibiotic efficacy by their combination with new antimicrobials, such as plant-derived compounds, metal ions and nanoparticles and bacteriophage lytic enzymes

p.s. Here are some more sources:

   http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering .
   http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles.
   http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections
   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing

It would be very highly doubtful and very unusual to have many scientists investigating a quackery substance. Not to mention the positive results all of the articles demonstrate. Ryanspir (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my thoughts on that.

Are any of these about ingesting colloidal silver, as treatments for any disease? If not, I don't think they apply to this situation, nor would they be evidence that that use of colloidal silver is not 'quackery'.
Would you agree that if better sources can't be found (and agreed to be appropriate), one of the Quackwatch sources could be used, with an in-text attribution such as "Quackwatch says..."? If not, could you give reasons why. CarrieVS (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles." I would highlight the word "always".

I wouldn't like Quackwatch to be used in this article because it makes the article speculative. I have further established that higher quality, peer-reviewed research is present, current, in abundance and with positive results.

In relation to ingestion, I'm currently satisfied with the FDA advisory regarding that, the link is here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/Alerts/ucm184087.htm. I have no problem of the FDA advisory to be used in the article. In fact, I have proposed also to remove all NCCAM refereed context and only use the current FDA's one as it outlines the current situations, in which some of the silver containing preparations has been approved by the FDA for external use, and none were approved for ingestion.

I'll also bring to your attention, that the updated quackwatch article says: "(or anything else)". That contradicts the FDA advisory which separates ingestion (which is still in the field of alternative medicine) with external application. A quote from the FDA advisory: "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth."

As such, I agree that this quote from FDA can be used specifically in relation to ingestion: "FDA regulates dietary supplements under a different set of standards than those that apply to drugs. For example, FDA does not approve dietary supplements or their labels before they are sold. It is unlawful for a manufacturer to represent a dietary supplement containing silver as able to prevent, diagnose, mitigate, treat, or cure any disease."

If that is ok with you, there is no need to use quackwatch (or NCCAM for this matter). Ryanspir (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there's no need to keep adding to the thread on your talk page. I'm watching this page so I'll know when you reply. I only posted my last reply there so that the others would see it.

Firstly, which of the sources you've found pertain to ingestion of colloidal silver to treat diseases? Please bear in mind that I am very far from an expert on this topic or on medical Wikipedia articles in general.

Secondly, can I repeat my question from above, if - this is a hypothetical situation - better sources can't be found and agreed to be appropriate, would you then - in that hypothetical situation - agree to use the Quackwatch source?

Thirdly, as I understood the sentence, the phrase "or anything else" referred to treating diseases by ingestion of colloidal silver.

Fourthly, I'm not sure whether the FDA quote is applicable either. Precisely what content would you be using it to source? CarrieVS (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another aside: from some of the things you've said, I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that I have a position of authority or would be able to overrule the other editors. That is not the case: volunteers have no special powers or privileges, and we can only try to help you come to an agreement with the other editors. If you're hoping for me to issue some sort of ruling in the face of consensus, we might as well close this now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing.

1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old.

- "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1.

2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead.

Ryanspir (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quote

The relevant quote is: "Colloidal Silver

Many colloidal silver and silver salt preparations have been touted as cures for AIDS, chronic fatigue, herpes, TB, syphilis, lupus, malaria, plague, acne, impetigo, and many other diseases. Lyme disease is just the latest target. A 1996 Federal Register notice stated the "FDA is not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of . . . colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts for these disease conditions." The same notice stated that "human consumption of silver may result in argyria—a permanent ashen-gray or blue discoloration of the skin, conjunctiva, and internal organs" [17]. Despite these warnings, some websites devoted to Lyme disease or colloidal silver products display misleading reports about laboratory experiments in which colloidal silver killed spirochetes. One such report is a letter from Dr. Burgdorfer, the discoverer of the Lyme spirochete. The letter merely reports on a pilot study using colloidal silver to kill spirochetes in a test tube and states that additional laboratory and human studies are underway. Many silver and Lyme advocates have used the letter to suggest that colloidal silver has been proven effective against Lyme disease. However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." It referenced to [17] which is Federal Register 61:53685-53688, 1996.

The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as).

I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok.

"Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion.

I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion.

If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus.

Ryanspir (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything.

Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic

I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations:

From RSN archive 32:

"This question [of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source] has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit."
"I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit."
"On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source."

From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics."
From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Wikipedia articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does
This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources"
This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use.

I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion.

Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments.

I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN.

I think with that we may close the current RSN.

p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach.
The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here?
If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same.
That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify:

There is absolutely no consensus to remove all references/uses of Quackwatch in the article and leave it like that. It was very disappointing to see Ryan jump the gun and remove it while this DRN conversation over exactly that is still active and unresolved.
To try to better respect the WP:MEDRS timeframe, there is a proposal to replace the existing article content "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as 'risk without benefit'." sourced to the Quackwatch Colloidal silver article last updated 20085 with something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." sourced to the Quackwatch Lyme disease article. Note this is just a proposal, we haven't worked out an exact agreement on it.
If we can't come to an agreement on this replacement proposal, there is no agreement or consensus to remove the existing Quackwatch-sourced content, for the reasons Doc James and others have already stated.

Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus. Zad68 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be going over old ground a bit.

This is what we have consensus on:

We are going to include one of the Quackwatch articles.
Ingesting colloidal silver is an alternative treatment without scientific evidence of benefit.

The main thing we have to decide on is whether or not to replace the existing content sourced to the older Colloidal Silver Quackwatch article with something sourced to the newer Lyme Disease one. Now,

without editing the article until and unless we've finished discussing and explicitly agreed to do so,
without making interpretations of anyone else's comments or claiming we've reached consensus on things other than those listed above,

can you say whether you agree to make the change, or disagree and want to keep the current content and source. Keep arguments and explanations very brief for now; when we have an idea who objects to what, then we can start trying to persuade each other, if we need to. CarrieVS (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the change, although I would not mind if the existing content were to stay as-is either. Zad68 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree using wording: "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (would also be happy with the status quo) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both. Zad68 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Agree it is useful for the reader to know this is on QW's radar. Strongly agree with suggestion to use both QW sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alex Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to discussion.

I see that Ryan's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry -doesn't come as a surprise, but it is a shame as we finally seemed to be making some progress. I assume the rest of you can all agree on what to say and cite and we can wrap this thread up? CarrieVS (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think with that, there is no more impediment to agreement and consensus and this can be closed. Zad68 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was a misunderstanding. CarrieVS (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion - mainly going over old ground - on my talk page following tha last comment on this thread. No new conclusions were reached. Can we continue the discussion here, please. CarrieVS (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical uses of silver and Quackwatch -- are we done?

Are we done? Can this be closed? Zad68 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan hasn't responded, or indeed made any contributions, since Wednesday. I'm not going to close it just because one side of the dispute has been away from Wikipedia for two days, since he might just not be able to get online, but I would suggest that, since the rest of you are in agreement, you go on with editing as if it was done. If Ryan has any more to say on the matter I'll either let you guys know or I'll archive this as failed, depending on whether I think there's any point continuing to discuss it - if Ryan's still going over the same ground that's he's already failed to change consensus on for the umpteenth time, there won't be. If it gets to two weeks since it was filed and no-one has said anything for (I think it's 24 hours), it'll be automatically archived. CarrieVS (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Triggerhippie4 on 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

User talk:Triggerhippie4 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs)
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman adds template {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} to articles Judea, Tribe of Judah, Kingdom of Judah, Philistines.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on my talk page

How do you think we can help?

Tell Emmette to stop adding the template

Opening comments by Emmette Hernandez Coleman

Fist of all the template is mis-titled, there was an editor who didn't like the praise "Palestinian territories" and tried to remove the phrase throughout Wikipedia. At the time the title was given that title the template only contained what is now the "Governance (since 1948)" section, it didn't contain the "Sub-topics" section. As the creator and primary editor I assure you, from the very beginning the template was intended to be a country/territory history template for the Palestinian territories, not a specialized "Governance" template. The post-1948 part definitely needs some work to turn it into that.

Now that that's out of the way, my understanding is that Triggerhippie wants the template to only cover Arab history. This goes against the precedent of every other Arab country/territory history template, they all cover pre-Arab history ({{History of Syria}}, {{History of Iraq}}, {{History of Egypt}}, {{History of Algeria}}, {{History of Libya}}), and country/territory history templates in general which usually don't have any problem covering periods from before the president day inhabitants (Arabs in this case) arrived.

Almost all those articles are about the area which today is roughly the southern West Bank (AKA Judea). The template was in them for about ten days, until Triggerhippie removed them a few days ago (aside from two IP's with almost no edits, and one person who said "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. "Palestine" is not a country"). His reason is that the template is just for Arab History. There was no consensus to remove the template, or to narrow the template's scope to just Arab history.

In sort, I see nothing wrong with the template covering the ancient/pre-arab West Bank and Gaza Strip, just as the other Arab templates cover the pre-arab and ancient history. Triggerhippie does.

I think his position that the Palestinian territories template somehow duplicates the Palestine template ({{History of Palestine}}) by including non-Arab history, but this is like saying that the {{History of Jordan}} and {{History of Syria}} templates duplicate {{History of the Levant}} by including non-Arab history. Palestine is a geographic region which is far border then the Palestinian territories, just as the Levant is a geographic region which is far border then then Syria or Jordan. All those templates cover pre-Arab history as well as Arab history.

Lastly, Triggerhippie posted notices of this RM in allot of places, including Wikiprojects Palestine and Israel [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Governance of Palestine discussion

Hi, I'm Theopolisme, a DRN volunteer. Triggerhippie, it would be fantastic if you expanded your statement a bit: mediation is not possible without compromise, and it will help tremendously if you could clearly express your viewpoint. Thanks. [note: thread not at the moment open for comments, still awaiting other participant] —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point to remember, most of these articles are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, see WP:ARBPIA for more details. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's three related templates: {{History of Israel}} for Jewish history in the Land of Israel, {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} for Arab Palestinians and {{History of Palestine}} for the area in general. Emmette adds the second one to the articles on ancient topics I pointed above.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I partly disagree, but I don't think we're supposed to be discussing this here before Theopolisme opens this for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought he ask you to expanded your statement which I interpreted to mean modify your original opining comments, but I suppose it doesn't really matter which section you expanded your statement on. Still, this isn't open for general comments until Theopolisme says it is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triggerhippie, it will make this dispute resolution much easier if you state, rather than just that "Emmette is wrong", why he is wrong. I'm currently familiarizing myself with all material related to this request. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but if I'm not mistake, the issue here is the inclusion of {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} in articles that deal with the history of Judea. A few notes:

As this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 1RR sanction (through WP:ARBPIA) has been violated multiple times: by Triggerhippie, again by Triggerhippie, ~~and then by Emmette.~~ _{My mistake, dreadfully sorry.}
I advise both of you to make no further edits related to this issue (addition/removal of this template and its ilk to any articles), until after the dispute resolution has been completed.

Triggerhippie, while I'd still very much appreciate it if you could expand upon your thoughts, I think it would be better if we moved on in the process, as your points are made clear in posts on your talk page. With that said, do either of you have any thoughts on how we could begin to resolve this issue? —Theopolisme (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I violated 1RR, that revert was five days after my previous revert, well over 24 hours.

I'm in two thirds agreement with Triggerhippie's statement. {{History of Palestine}} is not a country/territory history template per se, but is for the history of the geographic region of Palestine. {{History of Israel}} is not a regular county/territory history template, it deals with Jewish history in Palestine the history of the modern stare of Israel. Israel's territory consists of most of Palestine, so it simply didn't make sense for the Israel template to cover the whole history of Palestine (unlike {{History of Iraq}} which covers Iraq/Mesopotamia in general), because it would have been a duplicate of the Palestine template.

Here's the disagreement. Triggerhippie's entire reason for removing {{History of the Palestinian territories}} (mislabeled {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}}), if I understand him correctly, is that is that the template is for Arab history in Palestine. This is clearly not the case, I've put the territories template up on the side so we can all clearly see it. It is clearly for the history of the Palestinian territories, not for the whole region of Palestine, but just the territories. It clearly covers ancient/pre-Arab history, just like every other Arab country/territory history template.

Palestine is a much larger area then the Palestinian territories, and until the mid 20th century the Arab Palestinians have inhabited Palestine, not just the territories, so to simply say that Arabs are dealt with under the territories doesn't work. The Arab period of Palestine is dealt with under the "Islamic rule" section of {{History of Palestine}}.

Triggerhippie may disagree with the scope, and may which to treat the territories template differently from all the other Arab history templates, but his wish does not give him the right to act as if the template's scope really were limited to just Arab history when it clearly isn't. I could wish that the Jordan template were limited to Arab history, but that wouldn't give me the right to act as if it really were limited to Arab history by removing it from articles about pre-Arab Jordanian history.

The relationship between this template and the Palestine template is rather like the relationship between the Palestine/Syria/Jordan templates and the Levant template. One deals with a narrower area then the other. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine is very small and borders within it changed constantly. Templates should be separated by nation not geography. In other Arab countries, there is no intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's sort of my point. A country/territory history template is usually about that country/territory (Palestinian territories in this case), not a much broader geographic region (Palestine in this case). I don't know what you mean by "intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates" but the other Arab templates cover non-Arab peoples. Look at {{History of Jordan}} for example, it has Israelites, Ammonites, Moab people, Edomites, etc; because Arab or not they all lived in what is today Jordan. The Jordan template "intersects" with {{History of the Levant}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I help edit Kingdom of Judah, and ancient kingdom which terminated with the invasion of Alexander the Great in 333 BCE. Without getting too far into the dispute, I was surprised to receive an invitation to this dispute on the KofJ discussion page. The template is "Governance of Palestine from 1948." IMO, this template does not belong on this article's page. I've have read some of the prior discussion between (I think) these parties before, and did not know enough to contribute. So the rest of the dispute is in your capable hands. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huey P. Newton, Talk:Huey P. Newton

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by UseTheCommandLine on 09:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Huey P. Newton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Huey P. Newton (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

UseTheCommandLine (talk · contribs)
Apostle12 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One editor repeats "extraordinary claims" (e.g. WP:REDFLAG) from a particular source (this article. Previous discussions have taken place on the talk page about the WP:RS status of other pieces by the same author (Karen Coleman), as there is some dispute. My attempts to find other sources that corroborate the claims that this other editor feels the need to insert have turned up empty-handed. Furthermore, rather than wait until more substantial discussion or, better yet, consensus has been achieved, this same editor has simply re-reverted, and has even posted a warning about the number of reverts that have been made in their edit summary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking for additional, corroborating sources, after attempting to find such sources myself.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on WP:REDFLAG in this context, make suggestions on the WP:RS status of Coleman as an author, and her Salon piece in particular.

Opening comments by Apostle12

For about two months now the WP "Huey Newton" article has contained the following entry under the "Death" section:

Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a Newton benefactor who through the years had provided him with cars, homes, and millions of dollars in attorney fees, paid for Newton's funeral.

This entry was sourced with an article authored by highly-respected journalist Kate Coleman titled: "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther," which appeared in the June 9, 2012 edition of Salon magazine. In this case "The Producer" referred to Bert Schneider, who had recently died, providing access for the first time to handwritten letters he received from Huey Newton during the 1980s.

Kate Coleman (editor UsetheCommandLine mistakenly refers to her as "Karen Coleman") was a natural to gain access to the letters Newton wrote to Schneider, because she has been writing about Newton, the Black Panthers, and the New Left for more than thirty-five years. Her article "The Party's Over: How Huey Newton Created a Street Gang in the Center of the Black Panther Party" (New Times Magazine, 1978) was a carefully researched, seminal piece that pulled back the curtain on Newton's violent criminality and his criminalization of the Black Panther Party. A subsequent article, "Souled Out: Eldridge Cleaver Admits He Ambushed Those Cops" appeared in a 1980 edition of New West Magazine and finally put the lie to Cleaver's and Newton's 1967 claim that the Oakland police had ambushed Cleaver, resulting in Bobby Hutton's death and martydom. Coleman has written at regular intervals about Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, and her pieces have been published in the Bay Area's newspaper of record, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and many other national newspapers. Coleman's research on Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party has always been impeccable; there is no reason to distrust her.

After carefully reading Coleman's latest "True Hollywood Story" article (see above), I augmented the "Death" section entry to read:

Hollywood producer Bert Schneider, a benefactor of leftist causes and friend of Newton, through the years provided him with money for a car, a down payment for a home, and more than $1 million in attorney's fees. Journalist Kate Coleman reports that handwritten letters between Newton and Schneider, revealed after Schneider's 2011 death, demonstrate that by at least the 1980s the two had became lovers...."Newton glowingly expresses his 'joy and sensual excitement' after spending his first night following his release from prison with Schneider. The producer had bailed him out, driven him in a white stretch limo by the prison so he could wave to his fellow prisoners, then taken him off to spend the night together 'on top of the (San Francisco) Hyatt.'" In the end, Schneider paid for Newton's funeral.

I believe the information I added is important for WP readers to know, since the fact that Newton and Schneider's well-known camaraderie also became a love affair may go far in explaining Schneider's unrelenting financial and moral support. We know from many other sources that Schneider paid large sums to cover the rent on Newton's penthouse, that he helped Newton escape to Cuba, that he paid untold sums to lawyers (one case alone cost over $1 million), and that Schneider's name was on the mortgage for Newton's residence in the Oakland hills.

During the past 12-13 hours, editor UsetheCommandLine has repeatedly reverted this entire paragraph, not just the new information I added but the longstanding, non-controversial information re: Schneider's extensive financial support and his footing the bill for Newton's funeral. When I objected that he was engaging in disruptive "meat cleaver" editing, he announced that Kate Coleman is an unreliable source, which can hardly be the case--Coleman's credibility regarding Newton, Cleaver and the Black Panthers has never been contested, and it would be difficult for any Newton, Cleaver or Black Panther scholar to ignore her work. In addition, her articles are extensively cited in many WP articles.

I wish to reinstate the paragraph, including the new information about Schneider's and Newton's personal relationship. Editor UsetheCommandLine has now reverted me THREE TIMES (!), and he has been unwilling to suggest any compromise whatever (a shorter quote, for example). This mirrors previous experience with his editing, on this article and others, which has driven at least a few editors away; he pretends to "discuss" the facts on Talk but demonstrates complete intransigence when it comes to his unsupported claims of unreliable sourcing and/or undue emphasis. I have never seen him suggest, or accept, a compromise. Apostle12 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huey P. Newton, Talk:Huey P. Newton discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be happy to help out. Let me review some of the material first. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question #1 for Apostle12: the article came out in June 2012, about 7 months ago. Is there any other reliable source that also suggests that the two had a homosexual relationship? Or is the Coleman article in Salon the only source that asserts that? --Noleander (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2 for Apostle12: We need to assess the reliability of Kate Coleman. You cite her 1978 article published in "New Times", which was a fairly minor publication (I think it is New Times (magazine)). In Google books, I see only 3 references to the 1978 Coleman article: [12]. Google web shows only 3 hits also [13]. Do you have any other evidence of Kate Coleman's reliability? E.g. critics that have commented on or reviewed her work? Has she been published by any major publishers? Does she have any academic credentials? --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the New Times (magazine) article was particularly important in terms of this article (though this is distinct from the article/publication/author being reliable as a source) because Newton himself publicly attacked the claims made in it (according to Pearson, p.282).

Joe Street, in his article "The Historiography of the Black Panther Party" (the only publication I'm aware of that has looked at the credibility of the various sources) mentions Coleman several times, and while he does say her New Times article "revealed the depths to which the BPP, and Newton in particular, had sunk." which suggests a factual basis, in the very same paragraph he states that she had been provided research material for the article by David Horowitz, who Street also characterizes as a "right-winger" and "antagonistic". Street goes on to say, also in the same paragraph, that another article penned in part by Horowitz was "Less an analysis of the party than a character assassination of Newton..."

I will also note that Coleman's writings (two of her more extensive pieces) have appeared on Horowitz's FrontPageMag website, and that Horowitz and Coleman's writings make up a substantial portion, if not the majority of the published material on salon.com about Newton and the Panthers. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question #3 for Apostle12: Have Bert Schneider's personal letters been published anywhere? --Noleander (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am Amadscientist, another volunteer here on DR/N. I am concerned with the addition of material that consensus sppears to have agreed not be used. I am also a little scepitical of the neutrality in the prose as well as the source itself being used to source this information as fact. While the subject has been deceased for about 25 years, I would argue this is still a recent death BLP and should be treated in the same manner as a regular BLP article due to the controversial nature of the figure and the politics surrounding his life etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy applies only to material about persons that are alive. So, strictly speaking, the strict regulations defined by WP:BLP do not apply to this DRN case. On the other hand, you are correct that every WP article needs to be neutral and use reliable sources. So, we need to focus on scrutinizing the Coleman source and deciding if it is acceptable or not. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does in fact cover recently dead persons - WP:BDP. CarrieVS (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out ... I was not aware of the WP:BDP policy. BDP only applies to "recently dead" persons, so Newton is not an issue here; but Schneider died about one year ago, which I suppose qualifies as "recent", so BDP does apply to him. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colemesn seems to be rather weak as a source on her own. If I understand it this is all based on the Times article from several decades ago that the author cites in a newer Salon article. I have to call this fringe, without multiple sources from seperate RS authors and publishers. Even without going as far as seeing this as fring it is very much minority viewpoint and I agree it doesn't seem to deserve mention in Wikipedia. Coleman's credentials seems to be somewhat limited to call this RS. Something of a "thruther" I believe. I tend to see this as a somewhat partisan issue from a source that doesn't stand up on its own well.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is my gut feeling also. But let's wait for Apostle12 to reply and provide more information. --Noleander (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Apostle12 about the pending questions here. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jeh on 05:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:PS/2 connector#"...almost all desktop computers still have PS/2 ports...." (edit | subject | history | links | "...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS/2_ports...." watch | logs)

Users involved

Jeh (talk · contribs)
Reisio (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

(Here is a better link to the discussion within the article talk page. Due possibly to the "funny characters" in the section head the anchor link doesn't show up above --jeh)

User Reisio (talk · contribs) objects to my application of a CN tag on a claim in the article. Reisio notes that, two years ago, he conducted a survey of product offerings from one distributor and his results support the claim. I maintain that, besides being two years old, this is blatant OR and as it is limited to just one distributor that is primarily in one market segment it is inconclusive anyway.

Reisio is also claiming "consensus" support for his opinion, which seems to me to be unsupported by any possible interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS. I also believe that consensus (even if he had it) is not allowed to override WP:V or other core policies. No verifiability has been established for the claim in question, so I think a CN tag is completely defensible.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talk page discussion. Reisio is now simply ignoring my cites of WP policy, saying I'm "not remotely interested in reason". Since my core argument is based on WP policies, if he chooses to ignore them, further direct discussion with him seems pointless.

How do you think we can help?

Reisio seemed very convinced that consensus, which he believes is established by a majority, could be a deciding factor. Perhaps if a few experienced editors point out that inclusion of a CN tag is fine and expected for uncited claims (thereby establishing what he thinks of as "consensus" against him), he will relent.

Opening comments by Reisio

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Read the talk page of the article in question, there is a straightforward consensus (and even if there weren’t, suggesting that modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports would be demonstrably incorrect). ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22 discussion

Hi, I'm Carrie; I'm a volunteer here. I've looked at your comments here and the talk page discussion.

As I understand it, the dispute is over whether a "citation needed" tag should be used on the sentence "PS/2 ports are included on most new motherboards."

Question: Is that right?

In regard to consensus, it has been said in the discussion that "that's a numbers game" - I understand this as meaning that [in your opinion] consensus is/can be determined by a majority. That is not in fact correct, according to the policy page, which says "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)." Having read the talk page, I do not agree that there is a consensus. (Certainly there is no consensus that there is a consensus!)

As for whether a citation needed tag is appropriate, WP:Citation needed says: "anyone may question an un-cited claim by inserting a ^{[citation needed]}, ^{[citation needed]}, or ^{[citation needed]} tag." As far as I can see, the claim is un-cited, and I do not believe it falls under any of the categories in Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template.

Question for Reisio: why do you object to the tag?

CarrieVS (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carrie.
What you’ve quoted from WP:CONSENSUS is specifically to counteract polls, which is why the word “polls” appears both before and after your quotation in the very same sentence. However, no poll has been taken on this matter. Aside from that, yes, consensus is a general agreement, which all dictionaries have a consensus upon. Whether or not there is a consensus that there is a consensus is irrelevant to whether there is another consensus, unless you were to query every individual involved and await their reply (which would be a sort of a poll).
It is true that Wikipedia:Citation needed says that, but even if it weren’t already self-evident (since most anyone can edit most any page), it does not go on to say that the actions of a person questioning a claim are unquestionably correct, and even if it did, Wikipedia:Citation needed is not policy. Jeh questioned, and I answered, a lot (including before he questioned). Despite your acquaintance with Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template, you seem to have skipped entirely the fifth paragraph. No matter how you categorize, for example, my audit of motherboards available at newegg.com, it is indisputable information (that is, common knowledge, which the fifth paragraph refers to).
As to your specific question of why I object to the tag, if you had read all of the talk page in question (and I understand somewhat why you might not have), you would know it is because, despite the verbiage at {{citation needed}} saying not to, people do remove information marked with this tag; and in the case of PS/2 connector, the article would then be presenting grossly inaccurate information. The very fact that PS/2 connectors are not yet obsoleted, as in the past certain organizations have stated (in addition to their technical and little known nature), is why you will likely have a great deal of trouble finding what some would call a “reliable” source on the matter (for either side). If these organizations’ assertions had been taken as seriously as they wanted, there would be a lot more information on the matter.
All that said, I’m content with Jeh adding his {{citation needed}} tag (even though he has been unable to produce a single source to the contrary), as long as when someone eventually bureaucratically removes the information (shortly preceding my almost certain restoration of it, again), you and he will accept my “I told you so” with grace, and not waste my own time (and to a lesser extent your own) in such a manner again. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No matter how you categorize, for example, my audit of motherboards available at newegg.com, it is indisputable information (that is, common knowledge, which the fifth paragraph refers to)."

I cannot agree with that. From what I see on the talk page, it appears that it is disagreed about even by people with knowledge of the subject. It is not something that you could reasonably expect most people to know if they are not versed in the subject - I can tell you that before reading that discussion, I had never heard the phrase PS/2 connector and wouldn't have known what it looked like, and now that I do, all I can say on the subject is that my computer doesn't have one - and I don't believe I am much more ignorant than the average person. CarrieVS (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your first question, as far as I am concerned, yes. I just want a CN tag, as the claim is not cited and the "proof" Reisio offered is WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH. Jeh (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I am not proposing or supporting that the wording be changed to "modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports" as was implied by Reisio in his opening statement above. This does however suggest to me a compromise wording, which I'll bring up with Reisio on the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both stating that “modern motherboards do not have PS/2 ports” and stating only that PS/2 ports are no longer used have the same (inaccurate) end result, no matter what it is you think I’ve implied. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing and never have proposed either of those statements. I don't know whose position you are arguing against here, but it isn't mine.

Regarding "he has been unable to produce a single source to the contrary", it is not up to the challenger to provide sources to the contrary. From WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

Regarding "someone eventually removes the information" after a CN tag is added, this is one reason that I suggested changing "most" to "some". "Some" would not, in my opinion, require a CN tag at all, as it is self-evident. And "some" does not preclude the possibility of "most", so "some" would not be wrong even if "most" happens to be true. Jeh (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a few options:

Change the sentence
Find a reliable source for it as it is now, if one can be found
Leave it as it is, but with the tag
Leave it as it is, with no tag

The fourth option, to leave the sentence without a tag, I don't think is a good idea. The information has been challenged, so it would be misleading to leave it un-cited without indicating this. The third option also isn't ideal: since the purpose of the tag is to request a citation, finding one makes more sense than agreeing to leave the tag on it.

So one of the first two would be best. If a reliable source can be found for this statement, then we can cite it and no "citation needed" tag would be necessary, if we try and we can't find one. If a reliable source can't be found, we will have to conclude that the statement is not verifiable, and so we would have to change it. CarrieVS (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jared Diamond

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rhonda.R.Shearer on 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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.

Location of dispute

Talk:Jared Diamond (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk · contribs)
James Cantor (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On Dec 31, 2012 a section on Jared Diamond's bio page, "Vengeance is Ours (2008)"that had been stable for years, was deleted on Dec 31, 2012 after James Cantor advocated for it with Joe Roe. It is notable that Dec 31 2012 was also the day of Dr. Diamond's book launch. On Dec 31, 2012, the word "forthcoming" was cut from in front of Dr. Diamond's book title to reflect knowledge of the books launch date by James Cantor and Joe Roe.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to work with James Cantor on the talk page as advised by an editor, Tiggerjay. In good faith, I went from advocating for the entire stable section to be restored to focusing on making small changes in one sentence. Dr. Cantor after only agreeing to the very small changes in one sentence, suddenly added a demand, in another sentence we never discussed. I asked questions and made arguments but he cut the words and declared the page done in middle of discussions.

How do you think we can help?

Looking at the case and offering independent advise.

Opening comments by James Cantor

I believe this was a premature and now stale request. Discussion was still on-going at the talkpage and has already moved past this point. Filer is an investigative reporter, asking for more detailed coverage of her findings on the BLP of the subject of her investigation. It might be illustrative to read her userpage mention of the topic.— James Cantor (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jared Diamond discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The 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.

La Luz del Mundo

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Fordx12 on 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

RidjalA believes that content in the Controversy section and the Discrimination section is not relevant or shouldn't be included. Such information provides other POV's to the accusations listed in the "Rape accusations" subsection of the article. He also wishes to include a source that has been declared unreliable or unusable by an RfC located here [14]. A past RfC located here [15] stated that the controversy section should be removed, or it should be merged with the Discrimination section and turned into a "Public image" section.

A past editor who started a dispute between Wikinuevo and Ajaxfiore brought about this discussion which has routes in a past dispute discussed in this noticeboard [16]

RidjalA and Ajaxfiore do not agree on the location of the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. One believes it to belong in the controversy section, another believes it to belong in another section as "Scrutiny." This is based on whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection is a "controversy."

I believe that the discrimination section should be refined for easier reading, and it does not have undue weight. All content described here [17] is relevant and should be included in the rape accusation section, and that the controversy section should be changed as stated in the RfC. I believe that if a Public Image section is made, all sections in question would belong there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked RidjalA on his talk page to refrain from discussing perepheral issues such as accusations against me and another of being part of a conspiracy and concentrate on the content here [18] and his. The talk page, and its archives, is filled with ongoing discussions on the subject. I do not believe that we are able to respect each other's opinions and thus this DRN would help alleviate that issue.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide a fresh viewpoint by helping us consider the content in question. Is Silver Wolf Ranch section a controversy? Is the paragraph RidjalA mentioned irrelevant with the rape accusations subsection of the article? Is the Discrimination section in violation of any wiki policy? How should editing in these areas progress? How should we react in light of past RfC's mentioned here?

Your opinions, input, and mediation will help us respect a consensus as opposed to accusing each other.

Opening comments by RidjalA

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Ajaxfiore

There's no need to discuss matters that have already been solved by RfC's. The content that RidjalA wants to remove is relevant, and should remain. Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by WikiNuevo

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Darkwind

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I am only tangentially involved; WikiNuevo (t c) posted on my talk page requesting me to look into the situation on the page, specifically regarding his contributions being reverted. I'm not sure why he reached out directly to me -- possibly he saw an administrative action I took at AIV or something. I saw that both he and Ajaxfiore (t c) had violated 3RR, and that neither user's edits were clear vandalism, so as an uninvolved admin, I blocked both for 24 hours as a consequence. I took no position on the content dispute, and still have no position regarding that (and for that reason, I am not likely to participate further in this filing). —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Luz del Mundo discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I will take a look at this tomorrow night. If any other volunteer wants to take a look too at any given time before I do, s/he is welcomed to do so. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wonchop

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ryulong on 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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.

Location of dispute

User talk:Wonchop (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ryulong (talk · contribs)
Wonchop (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Wonchop and I have several articles that we regularly edit in common. Since at least 2010, when I have brought issues I have with some of his edits, I have posted to his talk page to explain things or ask that he change his editing habits. He has only once ever responded to my inquiries. Within the past few months, with new articles both in our editing areas, he has once again performed edits that I found helpful, but in need of work, or I requested sources for content he added, but he has not responded to me. Examples of these situations are at User talk:Wonchop#JJBA episodes and User talk:Wonchop#Dokidoki! PreCure. Wonchop refuses to respond to anything and it is making things difficult, particularly when he refuses to change his editing practices.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted this message nearly 48 hours ago, requesting that he respond to me. He ignored this and edited as he does every other day.

How do you think we can help?

I need help getting the dialog started on the other end, or advice on how to deal with his continued refusal to cooperate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Wonchop

Have you ever considered that I don't respond to you because you are just plain stressful to argue with? Not to mention the matters you argue about are the pickiest of things (There's no source for this blatant Western reference so it must be written in weirdass romaji, songs should be credited to a character instead of the actual voice artist, pretty much everything involving the Persona 4 anime) and a lot of them don't really make sense in the first place (arguing about the order the episode titles are listed, really?). To put it as kindly as possible, you're the only one who cares. Wonchop (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

User talk:Wonchop discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The 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.

Real Housewives of XYZ

– New discussion.

Filed by 24.0.133.234 on 23:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Jac16888 (talk · contribs)
24.0.133.234 (talk · contribs)
Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs)
SineBot (talk · contribs)
User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

The following:

[19] on The Real Housewives of D.C.
[20] on The Real Housewives of Miami
[21] on The Real Housewives of Orange County
[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=536828403] on The Real Housewives of New Jersey
[22] on The Real Housewives of New York City.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to discuss but talk page has been vandalized and subjected-to off-topic bureaucratic nonsense and back-slapping behavior. Tried to inform those who do not understand the topic. It is being called "quotes" but really it is reference material of signature-statements that happens to have been spoken.

How do you think we can help?

We need a safe place to discuss the issue without heavy-handed war-type behavior.

Opening comments by Jac16888

Content like ""I give people enough rope to hang themselves, and the smart people don't." (Season 1)" and ""People have a hard time saying no to me, and that's just been my blessing." (Season 1)" as the opener to each character/cast members description section, over half a dozen or so different articles. Do I really need to explain why this is bad?--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 24.0.133.234

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Qwyrxian

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Mike Rosoft

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

@@ Line 634: / Line 634: @@
 {{DRN archive bottom}}
+== Real Housewives of XYZ ==
-== http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history ==
 {{DR case status}}
@@ Line 645: / Line 645: @@
 <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
+* [[Talk:The Real Housewives of New Jersey#Signature/Title-Card Quotations]]
-* {{pagelinks|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history}}
+* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Real Housewives of something or other]]
 <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
 * {{User|Jac16888}}
@@ Line 655: / Line 656: @@
 <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
+The following:
-Wholesale deletion of material, reference, across all The Real Housewives of... pages.
+*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_D.C.&diff=prev&oldid=536904547] on [[The Real Housewives of D.C.]]
+*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_Miami&diff=prev&oldid=536832266] on [[The Real Housewives of Miami]]
+*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_Orange_County&diff=prev&oldid=536829687] on [[The Real Housewives of Orange County]]
+*[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&diff=prev&oldid=536828403] on [[The Real Housewives of New Jersey]]
+*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=536828345] on [[The Real Housewives of New York City]].
@@ Line 676: / Line 682: @@
 ==== Opening comments by Mike Rosoft ====
-<div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div>
-==== Opening comments by SineBot ====
 <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div>
 ==== Opening comments by  ====
 <div style="font-size:smaller">Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.</div>
-=== http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The Real_Housewives_of_New_Jersey&action=history discussion ===
-<div style="font-size:smaller">Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.</div>

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards