This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
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.
Photos of bald people are being placed in an article about afro-textured hair. Photos showing texture are being removed and photos of unkempt hair not adequately showing texture are being placed by a user who has shown WP:ownership of the page.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have requested discussion on the talk page, but edits have been made without consensus on an obvious issue (this is a page about texture of hair and pictures of bald people are being placed there) this is an absurd issue.
How do you think we can help?
Please make clear that in an article about the texture of hair bald pictures are completely inappropriate. Unkempt photos are disrespectful when they are removed and replace pictures of well-kept hair. This is not an issue of dispute. On a picture about blond hair would I put multiple photos of bald people and replace the ones that show longer hair?
Opening comments by soupforone
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.
Afro-textured 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.
RfC and DRN are two alternative processes for dispute resolution. Only one should be used at a time. The RfC is on the article Talk page, and it looks like it was started today, the same time as this DRN. I recommend that the RfC be allowed to progress, and that DRN be used only if the RfC is not fruitful in the next couple of weeks. Editors interested in helping out can contribute at the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I only briefly overlooked the RfC questions, I would advise Priorsolve77 to revoke the RfC and try to settle the issue here, as there are several indicators suggesting that the aforementioned RfC would only escalate the conflict. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN is only supposed to be used after significant discussion (RfC or otherwise) has happened on the article Talk page (the DRN instructions say "the issue must have been discussed extensively on a talk page ... " ). Looking at the article history, it appears that the dispute just started in the last day or 2, involving 2 (or 3?) editors. One of those editors wanted more input, and so started an RfC and DRN simultaneously. Since there has been virtually no discussion on the Talk page yet (RfC or otherwise) it is wisest to first discuss on the Talk page for a few days and see how it goes. If things reach a stalemate, then DRN is the appropriate venue. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: August 2, 2012 at 02:29 (UTC) Reason: Closed the case, as the dispute resolution is happening elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Citing United States Library of Congress Research Division http://countrystudies.us and specifically their page on Bulgaria http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm I wanted to add the following text (in various forms): "Bulgarian resistance south of the Danube continued until 1453 and included the uprisings of Konstantin and Fruzhin in the early 1400s."
The other party rejected the edit, stating that the source was biased and flatly rejecting the change.
Sources to support my edit:
US Library of Congress Research Division - http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htmhttp://www.ue-varna.bg/bg/index.php?page=12&id=11 - University of Varna History Exam Recommended Areas of Study, which clearly mentions Konstantin and Fruzhin's revolt.
Couple of academic sources, in Bulgarian, that confirm the above. These sources are also mentioned in the University of Varna History Exam site.
1. Ангелов, П., Д. Саздов, И. Стоянов, История на България (681 - 1944 г.),т. 1, С., 2003. 2. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 1, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2003. 3. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 2, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2004.
I tried several versions of the text as well as presenting sources and arguments on the talk page, but was rejected with no logical explanation and with my sources replaced with sources I never quoted or the wording from my sources distorted.
How do you think we can help?
Since WP is based on fact and not opinion, I need your support to help me convince the other side to read the sources provided and either realize the correctness of my text or present other sources that negate the revolt in early 1400s and resistance mentioned.
Opening comments by Chipmunkdavis
I never said the source was biased, Ximhua just has a way to read sources as saying things they don't, and also apparently a way of reading my comments as saying things they don't. Discussion on the topic can be seen in the jumble of the talkpage, and I have no idea why this has been taken here. I recommend this be quickly closed as totally premature. CMD (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Bulgaria 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 am a dispute resolution volunteer. Based on your respective definitions of the problem, I agree that this is not the appropriate forum at this time. If there's a question about what the sources say and/or whether they're reliable, I'm going to refer you to the reliable sources noticeboard. If there's any behavioral issues (such as misrepresenting a source, or accusations of bias) then those should be taken care of in one of the forums for resolving disputes about user conduct. I am going to close this now, because it appears to be a dispute over what the sources say, at least for now and I don't think we can figure out a compromise on what the article should say until consensus is established for what the sources say. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)18:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no problem addressing these kinds of content disputes here in the DRN. There is overlap between the function of the DRN and the RSN. On the other hand, this DRN request may be a bit early, because this particular content issue (resistance after 1453, etc) only came up on the Talk page yesterday, and the conversation there is still on-going and appears to be making progress. In addition, this content issue can be viewed as a tangent to an earlier Bulgaria DRN (from about 10 days ago) which, last I heard, was going to go to MedCom for resolution. So, yes, perhaps this DRN could be closed, but IMHO not simply because it involves sourcing questions. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem addressing sourcing questions here; this is a fairly broad content dispute board, after all. But I prefer to do so as part of a broader dispute, not deal with sourcing-only questions. In this case, my argument for RSN was that it seemed to be exclusively a sourcing question, not a joint sourcing-and-content question. Still, I'm fine with making the close rationale be that talk page discussion is still ongoing and it's too early, and not touch the appropriate-venue question. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but for future reference please don't edit these after they've been closed like this. In the future, you should put a message on the closer's (in this case, my) talk page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A number of editors are repeatedly describing the killing of two British soldiers by PIRA as "summary execution." WP's article on summary execution begins "Summary executions are a variety of execution." The WP article on executions clearly states that an execution is a killing carried out by a state as a punishment for a crime, and therefore does not apply to this situation. However the editors involved refuse to discuss or justify their use of this wording. I would like a ruling on whether it is acceptable or if the neutral "killed" should be used.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Flexdream and I have attempted to discuss this with the other users on the article talk page. They refuse.
How do you think we can help?
By making a judgement on whether or not the term "summary execution," when applied to the killing of British soldiers in Britain by a banned militant group, is POV or not.
Opening comments by Flexdream
I'd welcome a neutral opinion. Wikipedia article 'summary execution' says its "a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial." So if the person has not been accused of a crime I don't see how it's a 'summary execution'. 'Killed' seems a more straightforward and uncontentious word. The Independent source uses the word 'murdered' and I'd be content with that word also.--Flexdream (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by One Night In Hackney
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 TheOldJacobite
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 Domer48
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.
Talk:Corporals_killings 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, I'm a volunteer at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would like to say that we do not decide stuff, but we may help with discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report01:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, here we go. The issue in question is that the article is being continually edited to say that two British soldiers, killed by a banned militant organisation on British soil, were "summarily executed." An execution is a killing carried out by a legally authorised body as punishment for a crime and clearly does not apply here. Three editors have repeatedly reinserted this term when it's been removed and have refused to explain their reasons for doing so. They cite one source as justification, despite the vast majority of sources using the terms "killed" or "murdered."--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ebe - The other involved editors are aware of this DRN and it has been mentioned on the AE page. One of the admins there has floated five days as a time to allow for the DRN to be considered. [[1]]. I don't know if there is any deadline or timetable but maybe five days would be a reasonable time to allow for comments? I'll be guided by you. Of course if comments are submitted just before any deadline you might then want to allow others to respoond to them. --Flexdream (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
There is normally no deadline, but as there is the AE, the limit for opening comments will be of 5 days, then, there will be 3 days of discussion. If they do not answer, the Arbitration Committee should make sanctions on the users for failing to discuss. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Given the fact that three of the five listed parties have either implicitly or explicitly declined to participate here, there is little point in continuing on the discussion. I've noted as such at AE, and have made recommendations based on my assessment of the situation. I'm going to close this discussion, and this should be addressed at MedCom in future if all participants decide to work on this issue. Regards, StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Nair community page in WIKIPEDIA is an afront to the community and is a disgraceful attempt to show the community in poor light. I do not think that any other community page in WIKIPEDIA has been twisted this way to malign, ridicule and spread negativism. The whole information given is fabricated and an insult to the Nair community who are known to have a glorious past and present. I would like to register a protest in the strongest terms against the perpetrators of this evil design and request those who have the know how to intervene. This will go a longway in restoring the credibility of WIKIPEDIA as a source of authentic information. It should not be left to independant editors to re write or write there own versions of history in order to hurt and mutilate community's psyche which seems to be the very purpose of writing such nonsense. Behind their scholarly garbs lies very vicious and venomous commulalist ideology and thinking.Beware!
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This is the first step I am taking in this respect and would consider further steps including drawing the attention of community leadership, media etc.
How do you think we can help?
You need to intervene to re write this article in a balanced manner. No one is against stating facts but there needs to be balance between negative and positve.Nair community has a glorious past, art, culture, eminent personalities etc who have contributed immensely in shaping the cultural, political and social fabric to their state and the country. Such things needs to find a place when you write about a community and that too under the pretention of writing historical facts.
Opening comments by SITUSH
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.
NAIR COMMUNITY PAGE 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'm closing this as this is not a dispute and the page is non-existant. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report12:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I added some detail to the Notable Inmates chart, hyperlinked the Bureau of Prisons Prisoner Number section to the BOP website, put a photograph of the prison in the infobox. Also, since some of the inmate names did not have their own wikipedia articles, I linked those names to articles on the same subject. I did not remove any information. I admit I did not discuss the changes before I made them and accepted responsibility for that. User XLR8TION reported me for a 3RR violation and accused me of being a bully, a rogue and a vandal. In order to address XLR8TION's concerns, I made a compromise edit (added less detail, did not use hyperlinks and did not link names to different articles), but he still reverted them all. XLR8TION comments to me in the article's talk page have a bullying tone like he owns the article and he seems to think he can order me what and what not to do like an administrator. I invite you to review the article's talk page, as well as the results of the 3RR complaint he filed, to see what I mean. I really appreciate your help!
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
In order to address XLR8TION's concerns, I made a compromise edit (added less detail, did not use hyperlinks and did not link names to different articles), but he still reverted them all.
How do you think we can help?
I'm honestly not sure because this is the first time I've had to do this. I tried to compromise as I discussed above, but XLR8TION isn't being very reasonable, in my opinion.
Opening comments by XLR8TION
Please limit to 2000 characters - User is an apaprent novice on Wikipedia and doesn't comprehend the importance of articles, wililinks, blurbs, or copyrighted photos. If you read my conversations on the article talk page, the editor continues to provoke an edit war due to his unwillingness to comprehend by site guidelines regarding copyrighted photos and the importance of wikilinks. I have informed editor that blurbs should be kept short as article will discuss the subject's importance, and that copyrighted photos that have been removed by other administrators should not be used. It's like teaching a stubborn child. The article is concise and his refusal to comply by the simplicity of allowing the reader to discover the subject further by clicking on the wikilink instead of reading a redundant blurb that is already covered in the subject's main article is a waster of time and server space. Learn to cooperate and stop edit warring. --XLR8TION (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Ebe123, a DRN volunteer. DRN is for content disputes, and we do not comment on the editor here, only on the content. Please make your statement about the content, not the editor. ~~Ebe123~~ → report01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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 only thing I added to the "details" part of the Notable Inmates section was one sentence regarding what the person was convicted of and why. XLR8TION would be right if I went on and on, but that is not the case.
Here are the changes I made at first, which XLR8TION reverted:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Edits to in the background section and edits on including the war on women.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to resolve on the talk page. Doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
How do you think we can help?
Give second opinions and perhaps help continue the process.
Opening comments by Adavidb
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 209.6.69.227
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.
Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy 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.
Filmnet
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A user called QbeTrue has been adding unsourced original content at Filmnet about a couple of hacks into the channel. He has also published source code from the hack. The issue was discussed on User talk:Floating Boat#Filmnet where I was trying to explain that the content needed reliable sources, but he refuses to do so, saying that he had hacked the channel and is a trusted source.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
How do you think we can help?
He needs to know that he cannot be used as a source but I can't convince him on my own without him throwing claims of "censoring articles" and "not trusting the source code" .
Opening comments by QbeTrue
How can I proof something I did 24 years ago ?. I do have the full souce code and provided only a small peace of the code. Can provide all if you like ?. The fact that this is argued is already very strange since no person is argueing today if a hacker is providing thousands of passwords in a file as proof. QbeTrue (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Floating Boat is making decisions about what is good or bad information on his own and has a pre-biased opinion, from the way he openede this case you can already tell he is looking for some support in his opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Filmnet 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 Dispute resolution noticeboard volunteer, and the case is open. Do not comment on the opposite party please, only on the content. Here's a policy to be read before commenting. It is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ~~Ebe123~~ → report11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I will agrue: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I can also claim to be an expert since I am (three world wide patents in securing information and protecting it) QbeTrue (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
May I ask the parties a few questions for clarifying the dispute?
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves sets several conditions for using self-public sources about themselves. Among those conditions there are "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." How would you comment on applicability of these limitations on QbeTrue's sources?
QbeTrue reproduced a fragment of source code on the page. Who is an author of this code, and what is its copyright status?
I assume question 1 applies to me, so I will answer it and let QbeTrue answer question 2.
1.The editor claims that he had hacked the channel himself so I think that would be a claim about a third party. I apologize if I misunderstood the guideline, because I admit I've just seen it for the first time.
2. The source code was the property of Filmnet, so the copyright would be theirs. However, now that the channel is defunct, it would be safe to assume that copyright is questionable.
QbeTrue: Don't understand the logic about being female or male I don't care !. Now to the point:
Yes, I did the hack. This means first hand information and NOT third party since third party is writing about something you did not widnes yourself but simply did hear about a "third party". I am also an expert in the field of computer and communication security but this was unknow to Floating Boat when I posted the article.
The original copyright party is the company that designed the encryption system and sold or did lease the decoders to Filmnet. They can not be located anymore and even if we could, copyrights will have expired after 14 or 20 years already according to current software law. Since this peace of code is only a fragment there is no copyright problem. Same if you use ONE sentence from a famous book you also do not brake any copyright law but you only can proof you have the book. When this software was written during beginning of 1983 there was no such thing as copyright on software. Floating Boat: If you buy a product you do not get the copyright of that product, you simply have the right to use the product and thats it.
The only person that I told about my Hack outside my circle of friends was Cambridge researcher Sergei Skorobogatov some 8 years ago when I did talk to him. He was just busy with his PhD in this field and reported some hacks that did look a lot like what I did in 1988. The only link I can provide that is explaining the methode used in 1988 is: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/mcu_lock.htmlQbeTrue (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This link doesn't mention Filmnet or microcontrollers you've mentioned in your additions. In your opinion, in what way does it verify your statement? Please, keep in mind the provisions of No original research policy while replying. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand your completely new to this but microcontrollers = MCU = microcontroller and the page if FULL of this, read the first few opening lines PLEASE. Please ask an expert to review and not a person who does not understand. Please. No offence. Better study something first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicrocontrollerQbeTrue (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
At this moment I do not care anymore what you do with my written text. I am more morried the way Wikipedia is handling things by using people with no knowledge to judge and decide about people with knowledge, its very worrisome. QbeTrue (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
QbeTrue, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. I am also an expert on microcontrollers (to pick two examples, I have designed a microcontroller-based system that shipped at a rate of 100,000 units per hour and another that passed a MISRA code review and was accepted for use on the flight controls on commercial aircraft). That being said, my expertise is totally irrelevant in this case. Anyone who can read and follow simple instructions can tell you where your thinking has gone wrong. We do know quite a bit about building an online encyclopedia, you know...
Your concern about "using people with no knowledge to judge and decide about people with knowledge" above is a common one, and we have a page explaining why it it that your thinking is wrong at WP:EXPERT. Please read that page. Fortunately for us, we already know what the result is of trying to create a free encyclopedia with articles that are written by experts. That experiment was called Nupedia and it was a failure. We also provide, at no charge, the code it takes to run Wikipedia and all of the data contained in all the articles. You are free to use that as a starting point to create your own expert-based encyclopedia if you think you can avoid the mistakes that doomed Nupedia. Alas, the primary mistake was trying to create a free encyclopedia with articles that are written by experts. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line is this. Either you are refusing to read Wikipedia's policies or you think that they don't apply to you. It's very simple. Either you read and understand WP:V and WP:OR and follow those guidelines, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sorry to be so harsh, but I can see that previous efforts to inform you of this basic fact have had little effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Last time some person told me he had a bigger bike than me is so long ago that I do not even remember, think I was 10. I did read all links provided and also understand that proof is needed for claims not to get a mess but if I provide proof its not good or it needs to be published before. This way you can always find an excuse to stop people from providing information. That is all I wanted to do but it seems your not interested. I can tell you that many Wiki articles have lots of mistakes written in them simply because people with NO knowledge are reviewing them. I stop wasting my time and seems friends and colleagues in the academic world that did warn me about Wiki are right. QbeTrue (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
QbeTrue, I think we (both Guy Macon and I) failed to communicate the idea to you: your additions should rely on previously published information. To add information about your work on hacking these particular microcontrollers you have to provide a source which would report this particular work. Your link didn't mention neither those particular MCU, nor your work on hacking them, so it doesn't help with verifiability. FYI, I am quite familiar with the MCU topic to be able to discuss this (though my experience is indeed doesn't match that you claim to possess), and I see that your additions, though possibly true, are not supported with previously published evidence. Like it or not, but original research regardless of its quality and proficiency is not allowable in encyclopedias (not only in Wikipedia, but any encyclopedia). I would also specifically warn you, that if you change your mind and continue editing Wikipedia, you should restrain from making (and specifically expressing) broad assumptions without proper grounds. The whole dispute about these additions owes exclusively to the fact that you don't do your homework of reading others' comments; thus this dispute is not about content, but about conduct instead. Closing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rule of Three (writing)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I added a section on the Rule of Three (writing) page. The section was entitled "Copywriting, marketing and advertising". It explained the use of rule of three techniques within these fields. The information was sourced by me from an external article listed in the history of the page. The article is from a knowledgable source. Although this article is published by a copywriting agency, there is no self-promotion in the article. The article is objective, appears only within the article section of their site and does not sell its services. The editor kept the content sourced from this article but deleted the link to the article as he considered it to be spam. It seems unfair not to credit the source from where the content came. The article is informative adds to the wikipedia topic and is not self-promotional.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to engage with the editor in a calm and rational manner. However, he did not want to enter into any discussion beyond posting links to Conflict of interest and external link policy pages (which I believe that this link does not violate). My questions were deleted rather aggressively and I was told by him to stop posting on his talk page, despite the fact that I have genuine concerns and was trying to engage in a rational discussion to clarify and perhaps resolve the situation.
How do you think we can help?
Would it be possible for an editor to offer a second opinion - to perhaps look at the content Copywriting, marketing and advertising (available in the history of Rule of three (writing) page) and the external link to gauge their suitability?
Opening comments by Ohnoitsjamie
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.
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 wouldn't. The user does not want to discuss. The place will not matter. Dispute resolution cannot work without half of the parties. I would suggest to Ohnoitsjamie to keep away from the disputed section if the user will not discuss to avoid (the appearence of) Wikipedia:Stonewalling. ~~Ebe123~~ → report00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Ohnoitsjamie is observing WP:ETIQ. I feel that this is not a case of either a conflict of interest or spam. Wikipedia does accept citations to commercial websites. I simply provided a citation to an external website. Again: the article is non-promotional. Not every link to an external site poses a conflict of interest, nor should every instance be treated as spam. An editor should not treat all external links with a ‘zero tolerance’ approach, without first engaging with the content. I maintain my intial statement outlined in the dispute overview: If the content added to the topic was good enough to pass the editor's approval (which it was), so too should the citation - simply to credit the source of the information. Scampicat (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie didn't remove a citation, though; he removed two entries in the "External links" section. Entries in "External links" are not thought of as citations, they're supposed to be a small assortment of links to external websites that would be helpful to the reader, more like a "see also" section. Ohnoitsjamie was perfectly within his rights to delete it as linkspam, since the links weren't actually being used as citations. I understand that you might have meant them as citations, Scampicat, but that's not what they were. You should read this article to find out more about Wikipedia-style citations, or perhaps this one if you think you need something simpler, since it's designed for beginners. As this appears to be a case of mixed signals, I'm going to close this, unless anyone else objects. Writ Keeper⚇♔13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. I misunderstood how to provide a citation. I can see now why Ohnoitsjamie removed the external link as it wouldn't have been clear that it had anything to do with the content. If I were to republish the "Copywriting, marketing and advertising" section, would Ohnoitsjamie object to me adding the link as a citation to credit the source of that information?Scampicat (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, there are a plentitude of non-commercial reliable sources about all aspects of copy editing. Why should we be using this particular commercial site rather than one of them? -- The Red Pen of Doom13:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, we don't have to use the link or the content. However, I chose it as it enabled me to contribute an important section to the Rule of Three (writing) section which has not as yet been covered. Sadly, when it comes to copywriting theory, the majority of text on the subject are fairly superficial, covering topics such as basic writing technique and how to gain employment (building a portfolio, gaining employment, etc). Text on actual contemporary copywriting theory are scarce and I've yet to find one that covers the topic discussed here. In my research on the rule of three writing techniques, this particular article seemed to summarise the technique's application within copywriting, while also covering the broader context. As the article is non-promotional I personally didn't see a problem with it, as it enabled me to provide an additional section to Rule of Three writing. Scampicat (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a good conversation and I'd hate to stifle it with bureaucracy, but as it's kinda drifted away from the subject that brought us to DRN, perhaps we should move this to the article's talk page? Writ Keeper⚇♔14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I will place my question in the article's talk page. Thank you all for your help, and apologies once again for the confusion on my part.Scampicat (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Margaret Thatcher
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have recently been made aware that my image appears in this photo on Margaret Thatcher's wikipedia page - File:Lady Thatcher at dinner 2008 crop.jpg. I am very new to wikipedia and I wanted to see whether or not it could be taken down. I have explained how and why the picture exists and engaged in discussions about removing it on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and on the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image, but there seems to be some disagreement on the matter. I would like the image to be removed because: 1. It suggests that I was/am a Conservative, which is not true (the caption initially read "Thatcher is surrounded by Young Conservatives", which can be proved to be factually incorrect and I asked to be removed). 2. It could really impede my efforts to find a job (I am just completing my masters and would like a job with a progressive organisation). 3. I have never, and would never have, consented to my image being used in this way. I realise that nobody can totally manage their image on the internet and I admire the work that wikipedia does, but this seems a little extreme. As far as I can see the range of opinions on the matter seem to be: a. 'I don't believe your story', b. 'the reasons that you have provided are not strong enough for the photo to be removed', and c. 'whatever your reasons, the photo actually detracts from the article and so should be removed'. I can, if needs be, verify my story and I think that I have provided a reasonable enough case for the photo to be removed. I also agree that the photo adds nothing to, and possibly detracts from, the article. This is not really about party politics for me; I actually have quite a nuanced view on Thatcher and, in any case, think that politics is more important than parties. It is about privacy, compromise, and unfortunate, unforeseeable consequences.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have engaged in discussions on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image. I have also contacted the Volunteer Response Team to see if this might be a personality rights issue (I was advised to do this by someone in one of the discussions). I am also thinking of contacting the Author of the image to see if he can do something.
How do you think we can help?
As I said, I am new to wikipedia and this is all a little overwhelming. I have tried to be reasonable all the way through this process and I just want to see a swift end to this quite surreal situation. I would like the image to be taken down. I really don't think that it adds anything at all to the article and given the the possibility of it having some quite unfortunate consequences for someone who has never sought nor intends to seek public attention, it seems unreasonable to keep it.
Opening comments by BritishWatcher
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 Maproom
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.
Margaret Thatcher 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.
Pantheism
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Basically, the president of an environmentalist donation based website that calls itself "The World Pantheist Movement" has been trying to control the page on Pantheism and promote his organization (and book) and their New Age atheistic view of pantheism he has himself termed "naturalistic pantheism". I have attempted to compromise with him in the past but have failed and it has turned into an edit war. I have made edits that make the page more neutral and beneficial for Wikipedia readers but on a daily basis he undos my edits and accuses me of being biased - but my bias is simply toward a regular historical view of pantheism which includes all sides.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Many many discussions. The pantheism talk page along with the Classical pantheism talk page is filled with our discussions
How do you think we can help?
Please be the judge on whether or not this individual is self promoting himself and his internet group and forcing his one sided views on the pantheism page.
Opening comments by naturalistic
If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism especially sections 33 and 34 you will see that I have repeatedly asked Allisgod to cooperate, instead of which he has simply engaged in invective against me. Since he is in fact unwilling to have any discussion about cooperation in the usual place, I guess it moves here. I hope you will convince him that cooperation is the best approach. You can see from his description of the World Pantheist Movement (in "Dispute Overview") the extent of his bias.
I have been involved in editing the Pantheism entry since around 2009. I am Dr Paul Harrison, author of the most widely read book on pantheism: Elements of Pantheism and the Pantheist information website http://www.pantheism.net/paul which is the largest collection of information about Pantheism on the Internet. I am a world expert on Pantheism.
I have repeatedly explained that my "agenda" at the Pantheism article is to ensure neutrality (all forms of Pantheism get equal prominence and none are favored). Also accuracy and absence of original research (OR) or Point of View material (POV).
Naturalistic Pantheism (the version I favor) does not get any better treatment than any other form. The World Pantheist Movement of which I am president is mentioned because it is by far the largest pantheist organization in the world.
Allisgod arrived a couple of months ago and immediately began making radical changes. Allisgod began by including a great deal of OR and POV material. Now he knows the ropes he sources his material, but he still has a clear agenda which he admitted explicitly, which involves pushing certain key figures and forms of pantheism. His view is not at all neutral, he has been heavily pushing so-called "Classical Pantheism" and determinism and he openly admits this here:
Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC))
We do not know what vested interests Allisgod has but has has here declared his bias and his intention to edit the page in accordance with his bias.
Far from controlling the page I have in fact accepted many of Alligod's changes such as including in the Categories sections "Determinism or Indeterminism" and "Theistic or Atheistic", removing an image of the World Pantheist Movement symbol (which was not inserted by me in the first place) and moving the "God" table to the top.
None of Alligod's contributions to the Talk: Pantheism page have been aimed at resolving anything whatsoever, rather he has simply engaged in accusations against me. I have requested cooperation and mutual respect and he has never responded.
I believe that you should advise Allisgod to respond positively to my repeated suggestions of cooperation and mutual respect. A few weeks ago we had arrived at a version that both of us left alone for several weeks - I assumed that version was acceptable. We had also arrived (or so I thought) at a more rational and cooperative approach to editing. But in the last couple of days Allisgod has reverted to his original approach of non-cooperation and personal attacks.
Pantheism discussion
NOTE to participants: Here at DRN please comment only on the content of the ariticle. Please refrain from discussing the other editor's behavior. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Allisgod: Can you clarify the issues a bit? (1) You say that user Naturalistic is attempting to add material regarding "naturalistic pantheism". Are you suggesting that NP is not a notable concept, or that there are insufficient sources to justify its inclusion? (2) Can you provide a few "diffs" (article history deltas) that illustrate the sort of additions to the article that you object to? (3) Is it correct to say that you wouldn't object to some mention of naturalistic pantheism, but you just want it limited to a modern context? (4) You suggest that a book is being improperly promoted. Which book? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1) I have seen the phrase "Naturalistic pantheism" used in texts, however the meanings have varied. Various individuals, in an effort to distinguish their version of pantheism with the more traditional versions inspired by Spinoza, have used the phrase. Whether or not it is a notable concept in itself, I am not sure. But I would note that "The World Pantheist Movement" has its own very specific idea of what "Naturalistic Pantheism" means to them, which they originally termed "Scientific Pantheism" (the latter phrase is probably not a notable concept and was invented by the user). I haven't attempted to edit the Naturalistic pantheism page.
2) The recent 3 edits on August 3 2012 by user naturalistic are what brought me here for some help. The differences between versions may look minor for some, but they are not minor to a student of philosophy. User naturalistic attempts to remove or diminish certain concepts bound to Pantheism. Those concepts include Baruch Spinoza, God, and Classical Pantheism (and related concepts). I will address these individually:
-Baruch Spinoza is the name mentioned most often in any scholarly text regarding Pantheism. That's because the term was invented and popularized by two individuals (Joseph Raphson and John Toland) who were inspired by Spinoza's philosophical work, Ethics. Toland (and others) used the word Spinozist and Pantheist interchangeably. Spinoza was a determinist who used the word God to describe everything (every substance and event of the Universe).
-God is a word discouraged by user naturalistic's version of "Naturalistic pantheism" and "The World Pantheist Movement". As such, he clearly removes and edits out the word God in the Pantheism article and any related words, or he adds significant qualifiers to the word.
-User naturalistic and I had an extensive debate about the "Varieties" section of the article. He had in the past deleted the article on Classical Pantheism section saying something along the lines of 'there's no such thing' and that it 'makes naturalistic pantheism look inferior'. Yet, there was no counter to "Naturalistic pantheism" on the page. In fact, the page was dominated by this naturalistic position. Classical Pantheism was a phrase used by philosopher Charles Hartshorne which he used to specifically describe the traditional deterministic pantheism of Spinoza and the Stoics. It is what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism and Hartshorne is the only major philosopher to have qualified the broad word Pantheism into a specific type.
-3) That is correct. Although I believe their form of "Naturalistic pantheism" may not be pantheism at all (Naturalism would be a better word), I am alright with the usage and the ideas limited to a modern context.
-4) My point was about a conflict of interest and explaining the motivations of the user in making persistent changes in the long term. After weeks of extensive debate, we had come up with a compromise on the varieties section, only for him to start making changes again recently on what we had exhaustively compromised on before. This suggests to me that the user is insincere in reaching a compromise due to his conflict of interest (promotion of his "Naturalistic pantheism" donation based website, which includes his book). But regardless of his motivations, he has tried to pigeonhole the word pantheism. For example, here is the intro he wants for the pantheism page:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.
My version:
Pantheism is a word derived from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God,[3] or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[4] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it.[5] The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.
In my version I add 1) "It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or" and 2) "As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it." These are well sourced, and note that both include the word "or" to leave room for his version of pantheism. He, on the other hand, attempts to limit Pantheism to mean only his version of pantheism. I find him to be an intelligent person, but some of what he has been doing in trying to redefine pantheism and/or prioritize his modern version of pantheism to be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs)
Allisgod's version of the introduction is blatantly theistic. Almost all reputable sources define Pantheism as equating the Universe with God.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
My version includes both theistic and atheistic elements of pantheism, hence the word "or". User naturalistic's version only includes a strictly atheistic POV (a.k.a. "Naturalistic pantheism). I will note he also keeps removing or bringing down the "God" box from the page while most of the other pages included in the God box have this box on top. (Allisgod (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC))
Naturalistic: Questions for you: (1) Can you provide some sources here that demonstrate that "naturalistic pantheism" (NP) is sufficiently important to be in the pantheism article? I glanced at Google Books, and it looks like the term is indeed used frequently by somewhat major publications. Could you pick the two or three most reliable, most authorative sources (not your own) that (in your opinion) define NP and explain its significance? (2) the pantheism article has three footnotes and two external links that refer to pantheism.net. Is there any conflict of interest (see WP:COI) involved in those references? (3) Are there any more reliable/formal (book or journal) sources (not your own) that could be used for the footnotes instead of a web site? --Noleander (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There are only three books in print that address Pantheism comprehensively. One of these is my own, Elements of Pantheism, which was published in 1999 and introduces and describes Naturalistic Pantheism on pages 97-99. The other two are Standing in the Light by Sharman Apt Russel and Pantheism by Michael Levine. Out of the three books Elements of Pantheism is consistently much higher in the Amazon raking of sales. On what basis would I not quote my own book?
The World Pantheist Movement website (http://www.pantheism.net) has been in existence for 13 years and is the highest ranked non-Wikipedia pantheism search result on Google AND on Bing. How can that not be notable?
I have addressed the conflict of interest issue below. Many many editors who are experts in their field have conflicts of interest - what matters is that their editing should be neutral, which mine always has been. I have not placed Naturalistic Pantheism at the top in the "Varieties" section, I have not given in extra length, I have not presented any arguments that favor it over other versions.
Alligod has a conflict of interest, in that he very strongly favors "Classical Pantheism" and has stated his intention to push it, Charles Hartshorne, Spinoza and determinism. His editing is in line with his preference. He keeps placing his preferred version Classical Pantheism at the top of the varieties section, he has kept increasing its length, and he has included arguments that determinism is a logical consequence of Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, I don't think that Allisgod is objecting to inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism (a term widely used in the pages of the World Pantheist Movement, which is the largest pantheist organization in the world, and the first entry in any Google search for Pantheism after Wikipedia.
His claim is that I am editing the page in a biassed manner in favor of Naturalistic Pantheism. That claim is obviously false. Naturalistic Pantheism has LESS mention here (3 lines) than Taoism, Hinduism, Wicca or for that matter Allisgod's favorite, Classical or Deterministic Pantheism (4 lines).
I have always edited this page in a neutral way. Allisgod has been continually pushing his own favorite to the top of the "Varieties" section. I have not been responding by pushing my favorite to the top.
Re conflict of interest, this concept does not mean that experts in a field may not edit Wikipedia articles in that field. All types of expert have their own particular slant - what matters is that they should edit in a neutral way without letting their interest affect how they edit. I have never done so.
However, I believe that Allisgod has done so. He has clearly admitted his agenda (see above in italics) and all his edits have been aimed at pushing his agenda. We do not know whether Allisgod has a conflict of interest - I believe he does. At the very least he is known to favor one version of Pantheism and has admitted as much. However, whether he does or not, he has clearly been editing in a biased manner.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Can you please answer questions (1) and (3)? Also, please refrain from discussing Allisgod's behavior: it does not help at all. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, I don't think either Allisgod or myself have a clear idea of what Wikipedia dispute resolution does, what is its end-product? An agreed version of the entire article? Or what?
I don't understand the importance of your questions 1 and 3 since Allisgod has not complained about the inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism. His gripe is basically an accusation against me of biassed editing - not by simply including Naturalistic Pantheism, but by favoritizing it and the World Pantheist Movement.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of DRN is summarized at the top of this page. Basically, it is a forum for mediating disputes. The goal here is not to assess the behavior of you or Allisgod. Behavior does not enter into it all all. Allisgod seems to think that (a) there is too much emphasis on NP in the article; and (b) the sources used for NP in the article are not appropriate. Those are valid concerns. As a group, we can try to address those concerns. It may be that the article is perfect now and needs no changes. I'm trying to gather some information to help me form an opinion, so could you please answer questions (1) and (3)? The answers will help me (and anyone else that wants to assist) provide some input. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as to there being too much emphasis, you have only to see what length is devoted to each version of pantheism to see that this is a false statement.
The current version is as edited (reverted) by Allisgod, so no, it is not perfect.
I will check for other sources besides the World Pantheist Movement website, however, is it not the case that the long-standing website of a prominent organization in the field is itself a notable source?
If this is Allisgod's objection I also wish to raise one of my own, which I will add to my statement, relating to his inclusion of the term Classical Pantheism. More tomorrow.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking for more sources. The WP:Reliable source guideline summarizes how WP evaluates sources. Generally, web sites are discouraged. The best sources are scholarly texts published by academic publishing houses; or peer-reviewed journals. Pantheism is a very well known philosophy, and there are numerous top quality academic sources, so there is no reason to resort to web sites. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. This discussion is getting quite long, but from what I read of the discussion it's regarding the lede section of the article. As Noleander states, we need to focus on the best quality sources. Noelander, try using this page to see if the participants here can work towards a lede they can agree on. I've found it works well in situations like this before. Regards, StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts - I've read through some sources on Pantheism in Google books, and I've read thru the latest postings from participants above, and I came up with a few suggestions:
The WP verifiability policy requires virtually all sentences in the article to have a footnote (citation) referring to a source that supports the statement. The top priority for this article is supplying missing citations (for instance, entire sections such as Wiccans and OtherReligions have no citations at all).
WP prefers secondary sources, which (in this case) are books written by philosophers, historians, or theologians. See. WP:RS.
Web sites, including pantheism.net or any other web site, cannot be used as a source, because there are so many top notch scholarly books on the subject. See WP:RS. Web sites can be included only in the "external links" section.
The book Elements of Pantheism should not be used as a source, because it is a primary source, written by an advocate of pantheism. That is not to say that viewpoints from the book cannot be in the article; but that any viewpoint must be supported by a citation to a secondary source. Any modern (20th c) developments regarding pantheism which are to be mentioned in the article must by supported by citations to secondary sources, not by citations to material written by advocates.
The article should mention both "Natural pantheism" and "Classical pantheism" because reliable secondary sources define and use both terms. Both terms should be defined (perhaps with multiple definitions, if the sources so indicate) based on exactly what reliable secondary sources say, not what editors think they mean or what primary sources (advocates) say they mean. The article needs to use definitions of pantheism that are nearly verbatim (although not in violation of copyright) of what the top-notch academic sources say. Editors are not allowed to interpret the definitions (see WP:OR).
The lead should be written after the body of the article (see WP:LEAD). After the body is written, then the lead is simply a synopsis of the body, which does not include any viewpoint not already in the body.
Spinoza should be mentioned very prominently in the article, because the secondary sources mention him very prominently in connection with pantheism.
"God" can be mentioned in the article, because the secondary sources use that word in some of their definitions. The article should, of course, explain that some definitions of pantheism involve a notion of God, and some do not.
I think if these suggestions were followed, the article would comply with WP guidelines, and the readers would be best served. Are there any concerns about these suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes I have serious concerns in several important respects.
1. WP:Reliable source does not say that primary sources may not be used. It says that secondary sources are preferred, but "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research" In other words, they can be used with caution. Is there any original research in the Wikipedia Pantheism article sections on Naturalistic Pantheism? No.
2. Have you read Elements of Pantheism? It is not an advocacy book at all and was commissioned by a very prominent UK religious publishing company (Element Books) as a handbook and summary of Pantheist history and practice, as part of a large series on different world religions and philosophies. It summarizes the various types of Pantheism and the teachings of many prominent pantheists, and by no means is a book advocating Naturalistic Pantheism above other types of Pantheism.
3. There is no other current book about Pantheist history and practice so to exclude it is very restrictive and does reduce the amount of information for Wikipedia readers.
4. God is mentioned in the article and I have never suggested that the word should not be used in the article.
5. Spinoza is mentioned with appropriate credit for his key role and I have never suggested that he should not be.
6. Hartshorne's writings on Pantheism can be viewed as a primary source since Harsthorne was a very active advocate of Panentheism and a critic of Pantheism and his description of Pantheism is slanted in such a way as to show that Panentheism is superior.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Elements of Pantheism: The author of the book is Paul Harrison (pantheist) who, according to their WP page, has a PhD in geography, not philosophy. He is also the founder of World Pantheist Movement, which appears to be an advocacy group promoting pantheism. Thus it is more of a primary source than a secondary source. I've never heard of the publisher Element Books, but when it comes to philosophy and theology, there is little reason to reach outside secondary sources from the academic press. WP aims for the highest standards of encyclopedic content, and there is no reason to use books by advocates as sources for articles on philosophy/theology. Maybe we could solicit some input from other WP editors from the reliable sources noticeboard. I'll post a note at the RSN and see if some editors can share their thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I am not a geographer, I am a freelance writer. I have three degrees, the first (Cambridge UK First Class) was in French, German and Italian studies which are highly relevant to Pantheism. Maybe you should actually look at the book to see what it's like, rather than assuming it is advocacy. I have already explained that it is NOT a book of advocacy but is a survey of the history of pantheism and current practice.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to comment. I shall just give my views, and you may organize them how you please. i'm commenting as a librarian--I have no particular interest in the subject; my comments are based on general considerations, not the specific contents of any of the works.
As a preliminary, it is not the case that everything in Wikipedia must have an inline reference. But it is reasonable to ask for one if the material is challenged. In general, a definition is the sort of material most likely to require such a reference. The general principle, for a concept like Pantheism, there will be many definitions. All of those which represent interpretations or movements for which there is a reasonable degree of notability should be included--the standard for this is that there are good independent sources discussing that interpretation or meaning or movement. Many of the available works will be by people who are committed to one particular meaning, and they must be used very carefully, for they are prone to give a definition to other interpretations that will best suit their own ideas. The best source is independent modern academic works, with the proviso that meanings in popular use may also be significant.
More specifically, I do not consider that there is any evidence that Paul Harrison is an expert on the subject or that is book is an authority or even a reliable source. It is published by a specialized esoteric publisher whose list of publications is not encouraging [3], though at least some of the authors e.g. Arthur Versluis, have in fact works on their subject published by good publishers--having published a work with them does not alone make a writer unreliable. Having works on the subject published only by them is another matter. Harrison is a notable author, but that does not mean that all of his works are notable; I would certainly accept his works on geography as RSs in the field. This work is held by only 55 libraries in WorldCat [4]. I have seen no other sources for the concept of naturalistic pantheism presented, and if the term is used once or twice by earlier writers, such as Toland, it is probably used in other meanings--& the very article on the subject admits this. I would therefore reject any definitions sourced to his works,
I don't want to complicate this discussion, but when it is finished unless I do see some sources I shall nominate the article ( naturalistic pantheism ) for deletion. On the other hand, such an AfD might in fact be the best way of handling this argument, & perhaps this discussion should be suspended until then. And I shall also propose to move Paul Harrison (pantheist)]] to Paul Harrison (geographer). He himself should have no particular voice in how he is described, because of the obvious COI. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@DGG: Thanks for your detailed input. I concur regarding the "not every sentence needs a cite ..." I was too terse when I made that pronouncement, and omitted lots of important nuance. As for the validity of the Elements of Pantheism as a RS for pantheism article, let's wait and see if any other editors have input. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
User Filefoo provided input on this issue at Wikipedia:RSN#Book_used_in_Pantheism_article_by_leader_of_pantheism_movement. The following snippet is excerpted from that comment: "Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, ..." but refer to that link for the full comment. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Re DGG's comment above, I would request that Naturalistic Pantheism should not be nominated for deletion. A Google scholar search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" brings up 119 references. I will be drawing on some of these to improve references. A similar search for "Classical Pantheism" brings up only 48 results. Naturalistic Pantheism is the declared preference of the largest pantheist organization in the world, the World Pantheist Movement.
I don't mind whether Paul Harrison is described as a geographer or a pantheist - I would certainly agree that my publishing reputation rests on my geography books. I did not add the pantheist tag, someone else did, for disambiguation.
As you say, the "Elements of series" included some reputable authors, including also Martin Palmer (Taoism) John Snelling (Buddhism) and George Chryssides (Unitarianism). My academic record (two masters cum laude and a Cambridge Ph D) shows very clearly that by and large I can tackle almost any non-scientific subject extremely well. My geography books range from Inner City poverty and African agriculture, to world population and environment issues.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to keep this DRN case focused, lets ignore Naturalistic Pantheism here. If someone starts an deletion process on the article, that will be a separate matter. Likewise, this DRN is better off without discussing the title of article Paul Harrison (pantheist). Focusing on the pantheism article: I think we all agree that "classical pantheism" and "naturalistic pantheism" are used by secondary sources, and can be mentioned in the article. The important issue we need closure on is whether Elements of Pantheism can be used as a source. So far, a few uninvolved editors have said "no", but let's wait a bit longer to see if there is more input. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm a DRN volunteer, I'm going to weigh in as an editor rather than as a volunteer due to a COI - my own religious views are at least partially pantheistic. I suggest that Harrison's book can be treated as semi-reliable; that is, it's fine as an additional reference for a piece of info, or for completely uncontroversial material, but should not be used as the only source for anything remotely controversial. I haven't read Elements of Pantheism in full, but I have read excerpts, and it seems to me that it's a little POV-heavy but accurate if you can get past the POV. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jorgath: In light of the WP:PRIMARY guideline: Are you suggesting that the book can be used for any non-controversial facts about pantheism (e.g. history of pantheism in 18th and 19th centuries, how pantheism fits within theological frameworks, whether or not Einstein was a pantheist, etc); or are you saying the book's use should be limited to facts about the modern movement's own viewpoints (e.g. "The founder of the World Pantheist Movement, in his book Elements of Pantheism, defined a new naturalistic approach ...")? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere between the two. The latter stuff definitely can be used. The former, only for things that are completely uncontroversial. Essentially, I think it can be used for any fact about pantheism that is not contradicted by a more reliable source, and it can be used for any fact about the modern movement's viewpoints. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou Jorgath. Just to assist in this discussion and make it less theoretical I have uploaded the sections of Elements of Pantheism that are uncontroversial and more or less free of POV here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf I am suggesting that pages visually numbered 17 to 38 (history) and 87-91 (categories) are non-POV and can be used for factual references. Noleander, you can see for yourself whether this is controversial or biassed in any way.
The rest, as Jorgath suggests, could be used for facts about the World Pantheist Movement's or Paul Harrison's beliefs or practices.
Please note that the whole purpose of the commissioning of the book was to provide a source that would be of use to all types of pantheists, not just to one type.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you not see the circularity problem with arguing that your own work is reliable? Can you give us some evidence that other people who have objectively demonstrable expertise in the field, such as a doctorate in religion or philosophy, think it reliable? DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do see it as a prima facie impression. However I have a whole life history of summa cum laude degrees in three different fields, accurate and highly regarded writing that has won me two international awards, and high-level UN editing work of flagship UN reports and international commissions - see my Wikipedia page Paul Harrison (pantheist) and resume site http://www.paul-harrison.com. All of the above, which can be independently verified, testifies to a deep and effective lifetime commitment to accuracy, as well as an ability to write about very diverse subjects at the same level of reliability. I have never had any other aim in view in my involvement with the Wikipedia article than accuracy and neutrality. And if you just dip into the link above http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf you will see that the material is simply not controversial in any way, there is no slant in the coverage of individual pantheists nor in the categorization of types of pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
DGG, re your question of others using my book as source, here's some from a very cursory search
Here's a citation from Zygon, an academic journal of science and religion:
Religious naturalism and naturalizing morality U Goodenough - Zygon®, 2003 - Wiley Online Library ... 2001. “Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (December): 585–95. Harrison, Paul. 1999. Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe. London: Element.
Here's another from the Encyclopedia of Christianity: The Encyclopedia Of Christianity: Volume 4 Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley - 2005 - 952 pages P. HARRISON, The Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe (Boston, 1999)--Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
PS Re the challenge to the concept naturalistic pantheism from editor Allisgod who favors the concept of classical pantheism, I did a Google Books and Google scholar search for these two terms (as phrases), results as follows:
Google Scholar: Naturalistic Pantheism: 119 results. Classical Pantheism: 48 results
I just finished reading the book, Elements of Pantheism. From start to finish it is a collection of rigid opinions mixed in with some facts by a person who obviously has no background in philosophy. The author writes: "[Pantheism] does not say whether it [life] is determined in advance - or undetermined." Pantheism "does not say" ? Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of philosophy can see the flaw in a sentence like that (not to mention the complete brushing off of Spinoza's philosophy). There are many examples throughout the book like that. And to say it does not have a bias in certain sections is wrong. The entire narrative works its way toward support of its own very specific POV and toward environmentalism and naturalism. Of course it has a significant bias.
Furthermore, it's not about 'favoring' classical pantheism. It is about correctly representing pantheism. For the most part, Classical pantheism is just a phrase used for what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism. "Naturalistic pantheism" includes the naturalism qualifier. It is a newly invented concept. It's been a real disservice to Wikipedia readers that the pantheism page has been dominated by the "naturalistic" position and all kinds of advertising for the "World Pantheist Movement". Even today, some brand new username tried to add back the "World Pantheist Movement" logo as the main picture of the page. I've examined the history of the page and others have come and gone trying to fix the page to represent a more neutral view of pantheism, only to be bullied away (by a person who seems to be working full time to defend a slanted view of the subject). That is why I came here seeking help. (Allisgod (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
For other sources about variants on the subject in general rather than the modern movement in particular, may I suggest The Body of God: An Ecological Theology by Dr. Sallie McFague (ISBN-10 0800627350). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)11:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources? - Here are a few statements from the article that are sourced to the Elements book. Can someone provide a another source (secondary, reliable) for each of these statements?
"In the late 20th century, pantheism began to see a resurgence."
"the term 'Pantheism' did not exist before the 17th century, "
"various pre-Christian religions and philosophies can be regarded as pantheistic. They include some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander."
"The Stoics were Pantheists ...."
If we could see confirmation of these statements from independent, academic reliable sources, that would bring some clarity to this discussion. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't access most of my collection right now (they're in boxes while I get my wall fixed from water damage), but I might do some JSTOR-ing in the next day or two if no one beats me to it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2, 3 and 4 are verifiable statements. Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878 can verify those. However #1 is likely just POV. (Allisgod (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
"Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878" does not sound like a good source. People still believed in aether and phrenology back then. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
From my own knowledge, 1 is true-ish. I'm not sure whether I'd say the late 20th century, or even the 20th century (I read something somewhere about late 19th-century interest in the idea, but I don't rememeber where), but it definitely had a resurgence of "classical" pantheism and a surgence of naturalistic pantheism somewhere in that expanded timeframe. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2 appears to be true, although we can probably go later. "First used by John Toland in 1705, the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine." (Ted Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, OUP, 1995, p.641). Formerip (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we would need extremely strong sourcing for statements that people in the ancient world were pantheists. It may be appropriate, but it may also be anachronistic, like claiming Cleopatra as a feminist, Phaleas of Chalcedon as a communist or Jesus as a celebrity chef. Instead, we might consider comparing and contrasting old belief systems with new, if appropriate. It certainly seems unlikely that the Stoics can be considered pantheists, unless we mean to say that they tended to believe in the Greek pantheon. That said, the source I cited above does class Spinoza (17th century) as a pantheist. Formerip (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1 is verifiable from the sourced contents of the article, including the founding, in 1975, of the Universal Pantheist Society - the first pantheist organization using the word pantheist in the title, and in 1999 of the World Pantheist Movement, which became the biggest pantheist organization in the world. The Pope saw fit to denounce Naturalistic Pantheism twice in major statements in 2010. All this is documented in the Pantheism article. The expression used is REsurgence. As the article describes, Pantheism had been very prominent in the 19th century but much less so in the first half of the 20th century.
2. It's impossible to prove that the term pantheism did not exist before the 17th century, but no mentions have been found before Joseph Raphson (see Pantheism article.
3 and 4. There are tons of sources classifying Stoicism and several presocratics as pantheistic - no problem in substituting these sources for Elements of Pantheism. It's perfectly valid to attribute the name pantheism to beliefs that existed before the word was invented, just as it would be to call certain ancient philosophies physicalist, or dualist, or monist etc before these terms were invented.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@Naturalistic: Perhaps I was not clear. I was attempting to evaluate the Elements source by seeing if it was corroborated by other sources. Can you name some other secondary sources, preferably academic, which justify those four statements from Elements? [Someone provided a good source for item #2, so maybe you could focus on #1, #3, and #4]. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the DRN can be closed now. It looks like the remaining open issue is finding reliable sources to corroborate/reinforce the material that is currently sourced to the Elements of Pantheism book. There are about a dozen examples of such material, and they have to be dealt with one by one; and that is not an ideal function of this DRN case. I'll enumerate the material in the article's Talk page, and I'll make an effort to find some sources. If anyone wants to keep the case open, please provide some rationale. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The "Reception" section of the "Maafa 21" article is under a POV dispute. Two editors claim that it is appropriate for the narrative of the article to declare that the opinions of one side of an issue have established "fact" while the opposing opinions are "false". They have even gone so far as to reject the idea that this dispute even exists and have attempted to remove the POV-section tag. A third editor and myself (being the fourth) feel that the cited opinions should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the editors inserting their own opinions. Both sides of this dispute have asserted that they desire a NPOV for the article, but we have been unable to come to an agreement as to what that actually means.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have extensively discussed the dispute within the Talk page. We have also cited Wikipedia policy.
How do you think we can help?
We could use more clarity as to the intended definitions of NPOV and Impartial tone. We could also use guidance on how to determine when it is appropriate to ignore sources or to elevate sources.
Opening comments by ClaudioSantos
Scholars' opinions should not be presented as undeniable facts. Not any piece of criticism is being removed here -as Roscelece claims and overreacts- but it solely presented those opinions precisely as a matter of opinions not as it was a matter of facts. --ClaudioSantos¿?02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Roscelese
Beleg Strongbow, a single-purpose account on this article, and ClaudioSantos, a single-purpose account dedicated to connecting Planned Parenthood with racist eugenics whose edit-warring has led to past topic bans, wish to remove the statement that the historical claims made in Maafa 21, an anti-abortion propaganda film, are not true. This statement is a summary of criticism from historical scholars, such as the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, situated further down in the section. In the section, the scholars' criticism is elaborated upon: quotes used in the film are grossly taken out of context or simply made up, people's positions are stated to be the opposite of what they in fact were, etc. Nor are the film's claims that abortion is a conspiracy to commit genocide against black people supported in any other historical literature.
We would be in a different situation if Beleg or Claudio were pointing to other available research on the subject or finding valid reasons to question the scholars' expertise. But that's not the case here. Beleg and Claudio evidently fully accept that these scholars are authorities on the subject, admitting that mainstream scholarly opinion holds that the films' claims are rubbish and that the quoted scholars are authorities on the subject. Their argument, rather, is that all opinions are equally valid, whether belonging to a professor of history at a prestigious university whose chief work is reading, editing, and writing about Margaret Sanger's papers, or the man in the street, and that if a fringe minority disagrees with something, it cannot be stated as fact. This is in clear contrast to WP policy and practice as laid out at WP:FRINGE, not to mention WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Binksternet
WP:NPOV says that we should avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. There is no contest here: all of the scholars and topic experts agree that the film portrays a fraudulent history with fabrications of fact and misleading context. The only people who disagree are pro-life activists such as the filmmaker.
The problem that Beleg Strongbow presents at the article is basically his distaste for the very negative conclusions made by scholars and topic experts. Until last week his user page showed his strong position as a pro-life proponent. The scholars and topic experts who have commented on the pro-life propaganda film Maafa 21 are in full agreement that is based on lies, fabrications and misrepresentations of context. Beleg Strongbow has not put forward any new sources, or quoted new experts, he is just reacting to the reversion of his only edit in which he downplayed the very negative evaluation of scholars.
If Beleg Strongbow would like to soften the harsh evaluation of topic experts and scholars he should find some who praise its scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Maafa 21 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 dispute resolution volunteer. I'm awaiting a statement from ClaudioSantos before opening discussion, but I just wanted to make sure you all knew your request has been seen. That said, please do wait until I or another volunteer starts the discussion to post anything besides your statements. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, ClaudioSantos has made their statement, so we can begin. As I said before, I am a dispute resolution volunteer. This is an informal position that carries no actual authority beyond being a neutral, uninvolved person who is interested in mediating content disputes. This process is non-binding, and is only for mediating disputes over article content, not over user conduct. Since this matter is a potentially very sensitive one, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page on that aspect of this process.
To start, Binksternet's description of WP:NPOV is accurate. Just as we should not present contested opinion as uncontested fact, we should not present uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Note that for the purpose of this concept, "contested" and "uncontested" refer to the assertion's treatment by reliable sources, not to whether or not they are contested by Wikipedia editors. That said, I admire the idea of "letting the sources speak for themselves" as Beleg Strongbow puts it...but only if there are reliable sources that disagree with each other on the subject. If all reliable sources come down on one side, then coming down on the side of a different position is problematic. NPOV does not mean that we must give equal treatment to all opinions, it means that we must evaluate opinions based on their reliability, not on whether or not we agree with them. Furthermore, if all available RS come down harshly on this film, I can't imagine any way to back off of that harshness without going up against WP:WEASEL.
But all that said, there is another factor coming into play here. If ClaudioSantos or Beleg Strongbow (or anyone else) can bring in another reliable source that disagrees with the current ones, by all means we can change the weight of the wording. Likewise, if either of you, or anyone else, can provide a good reason why we should consider any of the current sources as unreliable, then change is possible. The latter will take some doing, as I don't see any of the sources currently in the article as unreliable (although some are only reliable in the ways they're currently being used). So I'd suggest going with the former. Find more sources. A good place to start might be a historian from a traditionally right-wing-Christian university (Liberty, perhaps?).
One more thing: something that very much concerns me about this whole section is the question of whether it is a good idea to have what is essentially a pros-and-cons list in the article. I'd like you all to weigh in on that question as well. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm leery of your suggestion that a user or users deliberately seek out the broadest possible definition of "scholar" in order to provide "balance." The sources should match, in quality, the scholarly sources already present - eg. Esther Katz, an expert on the topic from a prestigious and nonpartisan academic institution.
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Scholars are not the only reliable sources, for one. For another, I'm not asking them to find "balance," I'm asking them to find sources. If they want to "balance" the article, they need to have sources that show why the current state is not "balanced." If they can't, then the RS support the current state. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I just realized I didn't answer you on the pro-and-con list thing. Yes, and more than that, I'd prose-ify it up more. It's in prose format right now, but I'd make it so that there's more than one reaction per paragraph, perhaps improve the section intro, etc. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Better. It still doesn't quite flow exactly right, if you know what I mean, but at least it reads like actual paragraphs instead of a list without bullet points. Anything further on that can wait until consensus is reached on what exactly should and shouldn't be in the section. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorgath, thanks for the great feedback and suggestions! Electric, thank you also for joining the discussion. We definitely can use your assistance. :) I have actually been preparing a growing list of support for the film from multiple types of sources, including The New York Times and websites either that review movies or that commentate on the African-American culture. I hope to post it in the Talk section sometime today. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The movie review sites I'd be leery of. If I were you, I'd go to news sources that include film critics, not online review sites. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs)15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the NYT piece "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case"? That used to be cited in the article but IIRC it wasn't cited for anything it actually contained so it was removed. I hope you're not thinking of citing it as support for the film's alleged historical claims, because the article makes it clear that those claims are false and that supporters of the film don't know or don't care about the actual history. For further evidence that the film's claims are generally agreed to be propagandic nonsense, see this evaluation (it's not about the film, but it's about the same claims the film makes). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The assertion that ALL scholars reject Sanger's connection with Eugenics and that that the connection can be regarded as false in WP's voice just does not pass the sniff test. While Sanger's motivations are debated, that SOME connection exists is provable in primary sources (Sanger wrote extensively in Eugenics Review, and was a favored speaker of the KKK, though, oddly enough, worked with African-American pastors as well), and extensively covered in Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers, by Professor Joane Nagel , and Professor Angela Frank's excellent and exhaustive Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility. While true, that the academics you cite, can be classified as academics, that in no way means that your list is exhaustive or representative(it isn't, and to say it is is WP:OR), nor does it mean that those select few have no bias; also not true, they all belong to one or another feminist school (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the Margaret Sanger Papers project participants have something of an understandable personal interest in deifying Sanger; their academic advancement is a little more tied to accentuating Sanger's positive traits than it would had they been general historians.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The other issue of the connection of all this to present day Planned Parenthood is entirely separate. Haven't searched too hard, but have never heard a convincing argument that the views are endorsed or even known by present-day Planned Parenthood workers/leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Angela Franks is a theologian (not a historian) and anti-abortion activist whose book has received no recognition in the scholarly community, only in activist circles. But guess what? Even this anti-abortion activist with tenuous claims to scholarship isn't claiming that abortion is a conspiracy to commit genocide against black people. I don't have online access to the book by Nagel, who is a real sociologist, but I strongly doubt she makes this thoroughly idiotic claim and I'd like you to provide some evidence. Sanger's relationship to the eugenic movement is discussed in our article on Sanger, but that's not the claim the film is making, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on topic. Dispute resolution is not the place to soapbox about abortion, and posting flat-out lies, like Sanger being a favored speaker of the KKK, is not helping anyone, least of all yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN is not a soapbox nor for any lies. Point. Roscelese, I do not think your edit summary was constructive "your sources are bad and you should feel bad". "you should feel bad" is about the user, not the content. ~~Ebe123~~ → report20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing and mixing two UNRELATED points, much to the detriment of focused argument. The film, as I understand, make TWO points, One, that Margaret Sanger was connected to the Eugenics movement, and that her 1930s views and motivations would be viewed with some horror as racist today. Two, that the 1930s views of Margaret Sanger are still known, accepted, and guiding principles of 2012 Planned Parenthood. The first point has been made by many scholarly and WP:RS sources; the claims of you selected academic (I'd challenge that designation on at least one of your sources) selections that this cannot be true in any way points to the fact that "academic" does not equal "non-partisan". Similarly calling academics that disagree names does not help, nor your "scholar therefore fact" argument, on THIS POINT ONLY. Please stop characterizing those who note the legitimacy of point ONE with point TWO. On the second, unrelated point, I would and DID agree that the view of the OTHER set of editors in this DRN might be considered fringe. The connection between 1930s Planned Parenthood and that of today is tenuous at best.
Completely unrelated, but you can scan the historical archives of most Southern newspapers. Believe it or not, many published KKK events in the news or social pages, and YES, Margaret Sanger was a regular speaker. Admittedly, if you want a general web-searchable/accessible article or photo, you might have to get it from a pro-life website, but if you have the resources, the originals are pretty easy to find. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And I repeat that you are either accidentally or deliberately stating things that are completely wrong. It's not just that there's no evidence that modern PP has anything to do with eugenics; it's that actual historians completely reject the claims the film makes that tie Sanger to any racist goals. You're obviously relying on propaganda websites for this information, which explains why you're wrong, but you really should be doing better. (Sanger attended one KKK meeting to lecture on birth control for white people, was extremely uncomfortable, and did not attend any more.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(DRN observers should note that I've responded to this "support" on the talk page, pointing out that it ranges from rather to badly unsuitable.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Here is the deleted page for reference:
Boxing judge in the London 2012 olympics who gave a controversial and scandalous decision against French boxer Alexis Vastine.
[6][7][8][9].
These were deleted in minutes by administrator Acroterion without having the chance of a proper discussion. I am quite shocked. Could you please tell me what should I do ? Thanks.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to discuss with Acroterion. He answered me "This isn't a debate or a negotiation: I've described how you might write an appropriate article. It's your choice to take the advice or not."
How do you think we can help?
I want to get the opinion of administrators who are neutral (ie NOT friends of Acroterion).
Opening comments by Acroterion
I've described to this editor how an appropriate article on 2012 Olympic boxing scandal might be constructed, and have pointed out that individual articles on otherwise non-notable Olympic judges, consisting of a single line about the person "who gave a controversial and scandalous decision" don't pass the BLP bar (or even notability). This editor's insistence on creating articles about individuals rather than the event is a matter of concern. In any case the proper venue is WP:DRV. Acroterion(talk)01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of page "Gerardo Poggi" 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.
Moved from "Opening comments by Acriterion" above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The references given for the articles did not mention the articles' subjects, causing them to fail both BLP and notability. This is why my advice was to focus on the event rather than the individual. BLP is very clear about this, and your insistence on naming and shaming individuals rather than writing an appropriate article about the event is troubling. Acroterion(talk)02:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The fourth reference is a bald match scorecard which neither substantiates your accusation against the deleted article's subject nor is an indication of notability. We must insist on direct, substantial mention in high-quality sources (have you read BLP?). You're drawing conclusions from unconnected sources, which is wholly unacceptable and in violation of BLP. Acroterion(talk)03:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is your personal judgement and it is flawed. I challenge it. I think that the issue merits a proper discussion, that you denied to me with your rushed speedy deletion. You are abusing your admin privileges. Angryjo2012london (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
^The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN0-19-861263-X.
^Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971.
^Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan and Free Press. 1967. p. 34.
^The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN0-19-861263-X.
^Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65.
