Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	In Progress	Sariel Xilo (t)	23 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Sariel Xilo (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	8 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Urselius (t)	12 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	6 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 20 hours
Old Government House, Parramatta	Closed	Itchycoocoo (t)	4 days, 19 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 13 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days, 10 hours	None	n/a	WikiEnthusiast1001 (t)	15 hours
2025 Bangladesh Premier League	Closed	UwU.Raihanur (t)	1 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 22 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup

• Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I have been threatened with banning and told that my post violates MEDRS, WEIGHT, and NPOV rules. I disagree vehemently, and would like to see some version of my last entry included in the opening paragraph on the page.

Several page watchers are of the opinion that: General scientific consensus regarding high-fructose corn syrup is that it is likely not significantly more detrimental to health then common sugar.

I believe this is not an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs and desire to add lines that read:

The consensus is based on a 2008 review of available scientific research by the AMA which suggested at the time: "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose, but {we} welcome further independent research on the subject." However, since 2008 numerous additional studies including testing on rats as well as peer reviewed clinical and epidemiological studies have found: “There is experimental and clinical evidence suggesting a progressive association between HFCS consumption, obesity, and other injury processes” and “to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that HFCS is more likely to cause acute adverse effects than sucrose.”

using the following sources:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305710000614

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x916738m64212141/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152650

It is the opinion of the moderator that I am violating the MEDRS, WEIGHT, and NPOV rules because saying that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unlike sucrose and causes an increase in obesity is a "tiny minority opinion" uses a primary source for reference and includes another reference not from a peer reviewed medical source. I argue that the possibility that HFCS is NOT like sucrose and MAY be harmful is NOT a "tiny minority opinion", that the primary citd source is trustworthy and the topic of such a portentous nature and the research exactly what the AMA asked for but was missing at the time that the entry meets the MEDRS guidline which says "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care . . ." and therefore my entry is a more accurate and current NPOV and deserves inclusion in the opening paragraph.

For the record the latest primary research I quoted is:

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects. Le MT, Frye RF, Rivard CJ, Cheng J, McFann KK, Segal MS, Johnson RJ, Johnson JA. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

and the findings were:

"In conclusion, our findings suggest that there are differences in various acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses between HFCS and sucrose." and and “to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that HFCS is more likely to cause acute adverse effects than sucrose.”

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Sunvox (talk · contribs)
• Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs)
• Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs)
• CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• How do you think we can help?

I hope independent reviews will convince the parties involved to find wording that keeps the tenor of my entry. HFCS was believed to be the same as table sugar because of a lack of evidence, but the latest research indicates HFCS may not be the same as table sugar and may be more harmful than table sugar when used as a food sweetner.

My first entries on the page were poor and angered participants for that I apologize, but I would like honest third party evaluations of my last entry and of my logic as to why my entry does not violate Wikipedia policy even though I cite a primary source and a non-medical source. I, of course, will gladly accept the independent wisdom of the board.

Sunvox (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Primary studies that have received little or no coverage in secondary sources should not be given extensive, if any, coverage in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So who has the burden of proof here. Do you know how much secondary coverage the primary source has? And more to the point even if it has recieved zero secondary coverage, do the rules of Wikipedia not allow for exceptions, and does this topic and source not meet the requirements for an expception given the accumulation of data from different sources and the portentous nature of the topic? Sunvox (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Joe

Wikipedia can't be the leader or itself be the accumulator of (previously un-accumulated) primary sources, but can only follow others. That is, we have to wait for other researchers to verify/validate/etc and then publish further. Unfortunately, especially due to the controversial (maybe even politicized?) nature of the topic, we have to be especially careful not to jump the gun (there's no deadline because WP is never "done" and I don't see any urgency inherent in the content). If a new study really is groundbreaking or is the "first" to find something important, others will surely follow and report further on it. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. The problem that you are facing is that Wikipedia's policies generally define when material may be added to an article. They do not generally ever say that material which may be added to an article must be added to an article. Said in a different way, Wikipedia policy may prohibit certain material from being added to an article but rarely, if ever, requires it to be added. The arguments which are being made against you are arguments which can prohibit your material from being added to the article, but even if they prove to be inapplicable (and on a quick glance it does not appear to me to be that they are necessarily inapplicable; they are generally correct that scientific papers are in most cases not usable as reliable sources in Wikipedia, but perhaps there is a reason to make an exception in this case), then that still will not allow you to add the material to the article over those editor's objections unless there is community consensus to add it. Right now it's just you arguing against those other editors so, if anything, either consensus is against adding it or, more likely, we're in a "no consensus" situation, but per the no consensus policy the material cannot be added to the article unless there is positive consensus in favor of adding it. What you must do is either change the minds of the editors who oppose you or draw in additional editors who feel the way you do. It is improper under Wikipedia's no canvassing rule to simply invite other editors to the discussion who are likely to opine in your favor, but it is proper to generally invite all editors who might care to join the discussion to do so. You do that by making a request for comments on the article talk page. Unless you believe that it might be possible to change the minds of the editors who have objected to the introduction of your material, then that would seem to be the most practical route for you to take. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me also add that with the opinions of TFD and DMacks, above, it appears to me that we may well have moved from a "no consensus" situation to a consensus against the material being added to the article. That does not mean that you cannot proceed with an RFC if you should care to try that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

O.K. so forgive me if this is overly simplistic, but as I now see it, "consensus against" is determined by those actively participating in the page, and coming here does not bring new independent votes to the consensus building, and I can not ask anyone directly to read and vote on the issue other than to bring up a dispute, and hope for the newcomers to take my side. So for the moment the issue is finished unless some other voice joins mine.

Additionally can I infer that based on your comments (TransporterMan), you believe that my material "may be" admissible and "may" not be in violation of WP rules.

Does anyone have an example of when primary source material was permitted in an article? 108.41.128.155 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the heart of my dispute hinges upon individuals taking the time to read the available research and form their own opinion as to the importance of an exception. Clearly the preference is against exceptions, and it is quite easy to argue "the rules say no so no". Sunvox (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

We (WP editors) are not in a position to judge the an individual primary-research study as "important", especially one that is not obviously within mainstream/existing thinking on the subject--that's the whole point here IMO. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunvox, how about writing a suitable section that outlines the case of the highest quality sources in oppostion to the theory? — GabeMc (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I've rewritten much of the page, which was a collection of cherry-picked primary sources and misrepresented secondary sources. The scientific consensus seems to be HFCS is as bad for you as any other sugar, though more research is needed. Way too many "in rats" and "with a sample of 30 people" studies were cited. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone that added and organized most of the original sources, in my opinion a good deal of the "opposition" studies do meet WP:MEDS and are being excluded and that the statement of the scientific consensus is incorrect. Of the sources that definitely pass WP:MEDS are:

• Bocarsly et al. (2010)
• Bray et al. (2004)

Others are questionable in that they lack secondary sources or the secondary sources are weak but I believe that there is a strong case for exceptions others are given exception. For instance, the 2009 AMA study is given exception. As such I believe it's fair to say there is no consensus with regards to the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bocarsly et al. is an "in rats" primary study. Per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDREV, we use secondary sources and should ignore animal studies. There's no reason to make an exception I can see. Moeller et al 2009 is a secondary source and thus an appropriate source for the article.

Bray is the first reference in the page, as are the two interviews with the authors indicating they are concerned with how their 2004 article has been misused.

Can you explain why the secondary sources currently used do not meet MEDRS? A bare assertion is not sufficient. This discussion might be more fruitful on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes Bray is cited, sorry I missed it the first time.

First of all the fact that it's an "in rats" study is irrelevant, experiments done on animal models are important with regards to science and to understand effects on people. The only objection is overemphasizing animal models per WP:MEDRS. Secondly, by that standard both Moeller et al. and Bocarsly et al. are properly cited since both have an abstract on NCBI. The problem is Bocarsly has two further secondary sources (seen here and here) while Moeller et al. only has the NCBI citation, which in my opinion alone is not a valid secondary source.

Given all this, I don't see why including Bocarsly et al provided it's not overemphasized, given that it has secondary sources, would be a problem. I'd also like to hear input on whether the NCBI abstract alone would count as a proper secondary source. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Those articles from Daily Princetonian and the Princeton website aren't secondary sources, they are two press releases summarizing a primary source.

You don't seem to understand what a primary and secondary source is. When discussing scientific literature, primary sources are initial studies (2 groups of 30 rats were given fructose and lactose, this happened). Secondary sources summarize primary sources (examining the literature regarding the giving of fructose to rats, these general trends can be observed). For MEDRS, that means the sources must be peer-reviewed. Pubmed isn't a primary or secondary source - it's a database of scientific abstract. The pubmed link and the AJCN link are different ways to summarize the same source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley

• Wiley protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• T. S. Wiley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

For over five years, there has been only one editor for these two papers. I am the subject's husband and, as COI, I do not edit the document, but make suggestions in the talk page. The editor WLU is so irretrievably biased about this subject that I need another editor to look this over. The entries in the article are extremely damaging to the subject, and have been for years. The article is slanted and arguments to the contrary, including sworn testimony to the US Senate, are dismissed. In the most recent conversation, WLU dismissed the topic as a fringe theory on a fringe theory.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• WLU (talk · contribs)
• Nraden (talk · contribs)

Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:

Here is the reference to the rebuttal of Rosenthal in the journal Menopause - [1] Thanks for making the changes so far. Neil Raden (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The worst part of the article is this phrase "potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives." No sources. There are no conflicts of interest, that is a criticism from ten years ago. Today, Wiley provides only packaging material (syringes, bags, labels and packet inserts) to the compounding pharmacies (about 100 at present). This is no royalty or kickback. The vast amount of revenue from the Wiley Protocol goes to pharmacies and physicians. Pharmacies purchase the other materials from sources specified in their contracts, and there is no financial activity between those suppliers and Wiley. It's a squeaky clean operation. Unless you can source something to the contrary, I would suggest you remove this right away. The entire relationship between Wiley, doctors and pharmacies is clear and above board. Neil Raden (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is T.S. Wiley's SWORN TESTIMONY to the US Senate not a reliable source? It seems to me that her sworn testimony, where she is articulate about her approach and quite critical of mainstream medicine, more compelling than some doctor with no credentials in this field (Erika Schwartz) who uses her husband's connection to the NYT to trade on Suzanne Somers' notoriety and get published in the newspaper. Seems like a real lack of balance to me. Neil Raden (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Here;s an example. Much of the criticism of the WP is based on the conclusions of the Women's Health Initiative (which has itself come under attack.) Wiley states in her testimony, "The failure of the WHI trial is partially due to the lack of understanding of the biology of the reproductive and menopausal state as well as, the indiscriminant choice of study subjects without well defined entry criteria, such as on the average enrolling subjects 12 to 15 years into menopause, creates unfathomable noise for the outcome." Is this not equivalent to Rosenthal's ethical concerns? A published criticism of a trial? Neil Raden (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is a reliable source only for the opinion of the letter's author. Wiley's sworn testimony is similarly just reliable as a source about her own opinion. In the case of actual experts, those opinions can be worth including, but given Wiley's lack of actual quantification and expertise in a relevant area (a degree in anthropology and three scientific papers), it's a dubious inclusion. Wiley giving sworn testimony doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her an expert - nor does being articulate. Wiley giving testimony before congress is not the same thing as appearing in a peer reviewed journal, and if I saw Wiley's opinion on the WHI page, I would remove it as a fringe expert not worth including. The Wiley protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory that is regarded as dubious by the medical establishment. That's where the due weight should fall, irrespective the failings of Erika Schwartz's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Yes, I have been patient with WLU for years, on the Talk page only, but the prominence of Wikipedia in searches is harming Wiley as the article reflects the negative opinion of WLU and no one else. He has stated very clearly in the past that he is very much opposed to the subject matter, whihc makes him a poor choice of editor, especially as sole editor. Here is my question: If someone defames you in a reliable source, how are you to defend yourself on Wikipedia if everything you say is "original research?" Even a letter to the editor of a respected medical journal, WRITTEN BY A THIRD PARTY M.D. is dismissed. If there is controversy, why isn't the whole controversy aired, not just one side?

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I would like WLU to be asked to recuse himself from these two article and ask for some help finding some editors who can moderate this objectively.

• How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure, but if we can't get some other eyes on this, it would be better to remove both articles as they border libelous and Wiley is pretty fed up

Neil Raden (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

The Wiley protocol is a subset of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which has no mainstream credibility - a fringe theory. Accordingly, due weight requires the page reflect the mainstream opinion and not give the impression this is a well-founded, well-substantiated scientific and medical approach, and should include what criticisms are available. Neil doesn't like this, but we are not a place to promote unfounded ideas. I have no issue with another editor editing the page in compliance with the P&G.

Neil has been admirable in restricting his edits to the page in question, as one of the few regular contributors I am by default the person he is likely to talk to about this - but the page is adequate as is as far as I'm concerned. I have seen no new sources that I think should be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU has not been admirable, he poses as a fair editor but wields a heavy pen against ideas he doesn't like. Have a look at his work on the Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy page. He should be banned. Please see my many suggestions ignored on the talk page.

WLU contradicts himself - if the Wiley Protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory, why is it notable to Wikipedia? The controversy? That's been over for 5-6 years. Wiley has trained doctors around the world and thousands of people follow the protocol. If Wiley and the Wiley Protocol are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia pages, why not actually DESCRIBE the Wiley Protocol. There are three words of criticism and controversy to every word that describes the subject. Another contradiction is that WLU excoriates Dr. Erika Schwarz but uses her unfounded opinion freely to denigrate Wiley's work. Pick a foot and stand on it. WLU's statements in the Talk page border on libelous. And I would be willing to bet he is completely uninformed abut the subject. All I ask is to have an editor who is not openly hostile to hormone therapy to judge all of this on its merits.

WLU uses a couple of sources to shoot down Wiley, which are full of errors, but allows no defense, even a published rebuttal in the same journal where the paper was published. There are dozens of testimonials about the WP on Youtube, including 6 or 8 by doctors. Dr Erika Schwartz on Page 6 of the New York Post, a gossip page with pinups? That's a reliable source? The same Dr Erika in the National Enquirer? C'mon. If someone defames you on Wikipedia, what are you supposed to do, wait for a stranger to defend you in a "reliable source?" My suggestion is that WLU step aside (as I have in editing the articles) and that we restructure the articles to a pro/con format instead of this 6 years long ad hominem. It is materially affecting Wiley's ability to pursue her work because Wikipedia is a powerful source of information. Neil Raden (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. First, let me note that making legal claims or threats, or anything that even resembles them, is one of the fastest and easiest ways of becoming blocked from editing, see WP:LEGAL. If you feel that you need to make legal claims, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation via their contact page, but otherwise entirely refrain from making or alluding to such claims and I would strongly suggest that you also go back through the material that you have posted here (and elsewhere) and remove all references to libel. If you feel an assertion about a living person in an article or in a discussion is not supported by reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy, please follow the instructions in the biographies of legal persons (BLP) policy by immediately removing the material. If it is restored, then report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but remember that while issues of libel may underlie the BLP policy, discussing or making claims or threats about libel will still probably get you blocked. Second, this noticeboard and other dispute resolution processes here at Wikipedia generally do not work very well on open-ended claims about bias about entire articles. If you have specific assertions in the article which you feel are not reliably sourced, then please point them out. Otherwise, you may not get much response here. Third, I've not looked at the article or the talk page, but if the example you give above (the one following "Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:") is typical, I see no bias at all in his response given there. Sworn testimony and letters to the editor are, indeed, not generally considered to be reliable sources at Wikipedia and I fail to see what it is that you might consider to be biased in that response. Fourth, I see from this discussion that you have expressed surprise and disagreement with Wikipedia's sourcing policy as much as five years ago, but seem to still be struggling with its ramifications. Could it be that what you are identifying as bias in WLU is actually nothing more than the effect of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, where all that can be reported here is what is reported in reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia? As noted in that 2007 discussion, it sometimes happens that all a matter is notable for, based on Wikipedia standards, is the negative things about it, and positive things have not been reported in a way that allows them to be reported here, with the result that the Wikipedia article appears to be biased when in fact it is merely limited. If the negative things are, indeed, reliably sourced (again, as defined by Wikipedia), then it is unlikely that the article will be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not make a threat of legal action. What I said was that some things the editor said about Wiley in talk pages verged on libelous. There was no threat real or implied. But I'm not satisfied with your answer because when a third party makes damaging claims about you that are not factual in a so-called reliable source, you have no recourse on Wikipedia, and these statements are damaging in a very real way. I found it extremely frustrating that a third party rebutted these claims in the very same journal, but the editor refused to acknowledge them. His application of Wikipedia policy is very selective and I would appreciate it if you would consider this more closely. Neil Raden (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Word to the wise: I strongly advise that you follow the advice TransporterMan gave you instead of denying that you did it. Then once you have purged your posts (including the one above) of words like "libelous", we will be free to examine your claims of bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion I concur with Guy Macon and TransporterMan. Even using the phrase "verged on libelous" suggests that there may be cause for libel charges to be started. We understand that you believe that there is a lack of accuracy in the article, however there are ways to express your thought (such as parliamentary language) without bringing the legal aspect of the equation into play. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User repeatedly blocks edits of an addition that meets Wikipedia guidelines based on false characterizations of the edit. Does not respond to my explanation of how the statement is relevant, and does not respond to another proposed remedy. Addition reads smoothly and is directly related to material already present in the paragraph in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=489959318&oldid=489954813

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• North8000 (talk · contribs)
• Inijones (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:North8000#Notice_of_Mediation_Request

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Second Amendment to the United States Constitution}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes. Discussed the matter on the talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Note_on_Precedent

• How do you think we can help?

Outside opinion assessing the validity of my argument, an assessment of whether the proposed addition does in fact meet Wikipedia guidelines, and whether one of my other proposed remedies would be more appropriate.

Inijones (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. The problem that you are facing is that Wikipedia's policies generally define when material may be added to an article. They do not generally ever say that material which may be added to an article must be added to an article. Said in a different way, Wikipedia policy may prohibit certain material from being added to an article but rarely, if ever, requires it to be added. The arguments which are being made against you are arguments which can prohibit your material from being added to the article, but even if they prove to be inapplicable then that still will not allow you to add the material to the article over those editor's objections unless there is community consensus to add it. Right now it's just you arguing against those other editors so, if anything, either consensus is against adding it or, more likely, we're in a "no consensus" situation, but per the no consensus policy the material cannot be added to the article unless there is positive consensus in favor of adding it. What you must do is either change the minds of the editors who oppose you or draw in additional editors who feel the way you do. It is improper under Wikipedia's no canvassing rule to simply invite other editors to the discussion who are likely to opine in your favor, but it is proper to generally invite all editors who might care to join the discussion to do so. You do that by making a request for comments on the article talk page. Unless you believe that it might be possible to change the minds of the editors who have objected to the introduction of your material, then that would seem to be the most practical route for you to take.

Subject to that problem, in regard to whether their objections are valid, it seems to me that the New York Times article does not support the proposition that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent." Part of the disagreement between the majority and minority in Heller was whether Miller was, indeed, precedent and whether the lower courts had misinterpreted Miller as being precedential. To say that Heller was a departure from precedent, much less established precedent, says in effect that Miller was precedent and that Heller overturned it, when in fact the majority and minority disagreed over that very point. As for the lower court cases themselves, the degree to which they were or were not precedential is a complex issue which can best be summed up being that if they were precedential at all they were, as lower court cases, only precedential for some purposes and not others and that they were never precedential in a way that would restrict the Supreme Court. To say that "[t]hese 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent" in reference to the lower court cases, therefore, would be so overbroad as to be misleading.

While I think that the statement, "and were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" is relatively accurate and harmless, I do have to say that neither the NYT article or the quoted selection from the Wills book quite says that. The NYT article does not say that the court ruled that "a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" and the Wills book (which was published in 1999 and these rulings were until 2008 and later) does not say that these were "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since" Miller. It would be prohibited synthesis to combine the sources to come to that conclusion and so those sources are also inadequate and the assertion is inappropriate, even if accurate and true.

However, the foregoing analysis of the sources is mostly irrelevant since there is no consensus to include the edit in the article, adequate sources or not, for the reasons discussed above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to get in too deep here because the other folks at the article (including an already-involved person, plus others who haven't even seen it yet in this very-rushed process...this whole thing just started yesterday) don't even know about this. Biggest emphasis is on the issues involved. I tend not to hang my hat on just lack of consensus, but think that the lack of consensus is based on those reasons. One is of the content itself, for the reasons analyzed by TransporterMan, plus that said opinion is stated as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. The third issue not discussed above is location; the multiple attempted insertions of that opinion were all in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the consensus seems opposed to my inclusion of text about "precedent" I made a change that makes no such mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109

The change was reverted on the grounds that "the sentence about Miller which was added to the lead does not make sense in the lead and does not belong in the lead"

If the 21st century rulings make sense in the lead, why not also mention a significant 20th century ruling that still stands?

If the 20th century ruling does not belong in the lead, perhaps the 21st century rulings don't either.

Perhaps, since there is already a section on Heller, the text in the lead should be moved there.

Inijones (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the existing text from the lead to the appropriate sections on the same grounds for which my modified text was excluded, a proposal which I had made repeatedly, and to which nobody objected. My change was reverted unilaterally, without discussion.

If Heller can appear in the lead, why not Miller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By moving the text in question to the District of Columbia v. Heller heading you caused McDonald v. Chicago to appear as part of the introduction. This didn’t make sense so I reverted. I think a consensus is needed before making these changes.Grahamboat (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that here http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490145010#McDonald_v._Chicago BEFORE you reverted my edit.

But you're still not addressing the issue of why my compromise position was also rejected. I removed the offending material about the dissenting position. I included an unambiguous statement of fact regarding Miller. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=490126109 The entire second paragraph is about Supreme Court Cases.

If Heller and McDonald can appear in the lead, why not Miller? Inijones (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If Heller and McDonald can appear in the lead, why not Miller?", this has been asked and answered at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution three times already. I see no point in answering your question a fourth time when other editors have already answered it multiple times. The problem is that you don't accept the answers. Asking again will not change that.

So I have a question for you; after many arguments posted here and at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, have you been able to convince a single Wikipedia editor to support the changes you want to make to this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This was never even started properly. Another already-involved editor was not notified, and this was rushed to this page so fast (the day after the BEGINNING of the editing which is in dispute) that the other folks active at the article never even got a chance to get involved at that point much less get notified. The situation was incorrectly (to put it nicely) described as being a dispute between two editors. The main conversation is at the talk page. Inijones is putting selected tidbits here as if they were unanswered questions but they were already answered there. This is really messed up. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, the answer is the same whether this was done properly or not (and I do agree that this noticeboard entry is at least somewhat flawed). Either Inijones is able to convince other editors to support his vision for the page, or the page does not get edited the way he wants because of lack of consensus. As an uninvolved editor, I looked to see if either side of the dispute is violating policy (looks like a no to me) and then evaluated the consensus (looks like it is against Inijones to me, but he is free to run an RfC if he thinks that the consensus supports his position). Case closed, as far as I am concerned. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, the first editor to chime in called my compromise edit "relatively accurate and harmless." Why doesn't that count towards consensus? Inijones (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very busy in real life this week and will be traveling and unable to spend much time online until May 22, and did not intend to weigh back in on this noticeboard unless I could find some spare time to do so, but I do feel that I must take the time to say a word here. Inijones, you're placing far too much emphasis on the "accurate and harmless" part of what I said and far too little on the "relatively" part. By "relatively accurate and harmless" I only meant that it was accurate and harmless relative to the significant problems with the "precedent" edit which I had just discussed before making that remark. I did not mean to imply that I thought that it was in any other way either appropriate or inappropriate for the article in general, or its location in the article in specific and I certainly did not intend to lend support to a consensus in favor (or, for that matter, against) that edit. If I was ambiguous about what I meant, I apologize. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF INCIDENT

12 thousands characters of wikitext all as one posting is nowhere reasonable for a concise explanation. WP:TLDR

Hi North8000, I'm sorry if you see something "messed up" with my line of argumentation; please don't read sinister motives into my actions. I felt like you were not addressing the substance of my claims, so I sought assistance from a third party. I feel like the initial moderator's assistance took my concerns seriously, clarified matters for me, and I wish YOU would modify your position some TOO in response, just as I have. The outside opinion rendered by TransporterMan described by addition on Miller as "relatively accurate and harmless" and you won't tell me why you continue to block my attempts to make any edits. I sought an outside opinion though an INFORMAL notice board because I don't know any other editors here and I didn't have any particular interest in registering a formal complaint or organizing a propaganda campaign. I don't have a group to back me up and I don't have informal agreements with anybody to interfere with attempts to edit this page. I have never previously sought assistance in a WikiPedia dispute so I may not have done every single thing 100% kosher (e.g., waited long enough), but that's a product of my inexperience, not cunning. There's nothing manipulative here, everything is publicly documented. INITIAL INCIDENT I sought to contribute a statement that made two basic claims about the Supreme Court cases mentioned in the lead of the 2nd Amendment article: 1) that "These 21st Century decisions represent a departure from established precedent," and that 2) these same cases "were the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" [in the Miller case]. Each claim was supported by a verifiable, reliable source that substantiated the claims. The statement, however, was initially rejected as "unsourced." When I re-instated my edit, pointing out that the reason for rejecting it was incorrect, and that the statement was substantiated by the "dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling as quoted in the new york times, and the second cite was from a book by a pulitzer-prize winning historian," the statement was rejected again because I "didn't address the actual noted issues." At this point, I felt my position was not adequately addressed, and would benefit from the additional perspective of a third party moderator, so, after attempting to argue my edit, I sought informal assistance. INITIAL INTERACTIONS WITH MODERATOR TransporterMan, the editor who first stepped in to moderate the discussion focused his assessment of the situation on my text about the dissenting opinion from Heller. I removed that under his advice. His assessment struck me as reasonable and in good faith, so I modified my edit to exclude any claim pertaining to the dissenting opinion. I then attempted, instead, to include a factual statement indicating the year of the Miller case and the content of the finding. In his first post, TransporterMan had ALREADY said that this second half my initial edit was "relatively accurate and harmless." I did not after that point pursue any effort to include anything about the dissenting opinion, and attempted to include only that portion of my initial edit that was assessed as "relatively accurate and harmless." My behavior was not vandalism. ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO COMPROMISE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM MODERATOR Based on TransponderMan's assessment of my edit, which seemed oriented towards explaining to me the resistance I encountered with North8000, I added to the page my modified edit about the year of the Miller case and the case's finding. I made this edit as a compromise approached through informal means. The citation I provided (and, additional citations provided on the talk page) supported the claim that Miller was the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment prior to Heller and McDonald. The moderator understood this claim to be essentially "accurate." The entire second paragraph of the lead is already about Supreme court cases; there are, in fact, relatively few Second Amendment cases, and Miller is a significant one, as I have shown. I've provided several sources indicating that Miller is significant, and even the TOC of the current article seems to back up this claim. It furthermore seems that Miller is already alluded to in the existing text of the lead, where several "longstanding" restrictions on firearm ownership are mentioned. My modified compromise edit seemed like a reasonable and uncontroversial fact to insert by way of making a more well-rounded summary of Supreme Court case law already mentioned in the lead. If this factual statement is going to be excluded, perhaps no discussion of Supreme Court law whatsoever belongs in the lead, and any indication for it should be confined to the relevant sections within the body of the article. CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY COMPROMISE WAS REJECTED When I made this "accurate" compromise edit, it was STILL rejected. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=490128328&oldid=490126109 The reason provided for reverting this edit didn't seem to take into account the fact that this edit was a modified compromise position. Grahamboat indicated that mentioning Miller "didn't make sense in the lead" -- without providing any explanation as to why. This compromise statement was rejected despite the moderator's initial view that my characterization of McDonald and Heller as "the first major rulings on the 2nd Amendment since the Supreme Court held that a sawed-off shotgun did not qualify as a militia weapon" was "relatively accurate and harmless." My contention at this point was that if Miller is excluded from the lead, the same logic can be used to ALSO exclude Heller and McDonald from the lead. If McDonald and Heller belong in the lead, there is no good reason to exclude Miller. I therefore moved the existing text on Heller and McDonald -- unmodified -- from the second paragraph of the lead and inserted the text in the proper two subsections of the article that were already dedicated to those individual Supreme Court cases. I had mentioned this possibility several times -- as the least preferable outcome -- and it was never objected to previously. When this next edit was also rejected, the reason given for reverting the edit was demonstrably false. In the talk page Grahamboat said that I made an error while moving the text, and suggested that this was his real reason for rejecting my edit. I caught the error within minutes and corrected it well before Grahamboat reverted the edit. Grahamboat has not offered a more descriptive reason for why he reversed my edit, nor responded to my claim about his false characterization of my edit. Nobody stepped in with a "consensus" reason for reverting the edit (other than to suggest that "consensus" was needed to make any change). After I pointed out (twice) that the editor's note describing why the edit was reversed was false, nobody attempted to improve my "relatively accurate and harmless" contribution. This all could have ended with TransporterMan's first post. I am not the one stirring up trouble, and my actions are not "vandalism." ADDITIONAL VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THE NOTICE BOARD LACKING MERIT The most recent editor to chime in, Guy, lent an initial opinion without making note of the fact that I had modified my edit to represent a compromise position; to get a more useful assessment from Guy I took the initiative to re-iterate that I was now trying to understand why my "relatively accurate and harmless" (harmless to who, or WHAT... ideology?) subsequent edits were also being blocked. When I pointed this out, Guy said that the question of why Miller should be excluded from the lead while Heller and McDonald belong in the lead had already been answered. Since I had asked the question repeatedly and would obviously seem to have been missing something, it would have been helpful to hear what Guy understood the reason to be. Guy, however, declined to make a contribution that would have clarified or substantively helped resolve the terms of the disagreement as it stood at that point. OTHER REASONS OFFERED FOR BLOCKING EDITS REPRESENT POV North8000 had said the matter of including such a reference to Miller as I proposed or, alternately, removing the text on McDonald and Heller is a "legitimate" issue, but declined to address the merits of the issue any further than that, even though I repeatedly asked for more detail on that very point. Guy didn't address this while dismissing my concerns. Some of the reasons Grahamboat has given for blocking my edits seem to indicate that he is exploiting the consensus policy to block ANY edits that don't conform to his POV, such as when he justified blocking my "relatively accurate and harmless" edit on the grounds that "The second paragraph is not about Supreme Court cases per say - it is about the cases that count." If the consensus is, as Grahamboat has stated it, that only Heller and McDonald "count" -- especially in such an unqualified manner -- I'd say the consensus has a POV problem. Nobody has put forth any more robust reasoning. I was cooperating and willing to split the difference under the guidance of the initial moderator TransporterMan, who offered a well-reasoned position and who was not dismissive of my concerns. The latest editor, Guy, did not address ANY of this in rendering his passing opinion, even when I pointed out to him that his initial opinion was NOT exactly relevant and indicated to him WHY. Grahamboat has also suggested that McDonald and Heller "define" the law (or, in this case, it would seem, the Amendment), though I do not see how Miller is substantially different in that respect, nor how that doesn't entail the POV of a specific legal theory. An "Originalist," for example, might have a slightly different attitude towards what "defines" an amendment or a law or the scope of a law. Nor do I understand even why the second paragraph of the lead ought not be modified to serve as a more well-rounded summary of significant Supreme Court case law, especially since my modified edit makes no mention of the Heller controversy (although the existing text does promote this controversial material to the lead; my revised edit is "Heller controversy neutral" and, furthermore, may help improve the second paragraph by providing additional context that makes the lead look less like an endorsement of a single POV in the controversy or, by extension, an endorsement of a single legal philosophy). PROPOSED REMEDIES The article has now been protected due to "vandalism" it would seem because of my efforts to include a statement in the 2nd Amendment article, which "a native Texan" moderator initially characterized as "relatively accurate and harmless." I have been experiencing unreasonable resistance to a reasonable edit. I don't think there are grounds to consider my actions "vandalism" and I think, at a bare minimum, the page should be restored to the "unprotected" status it had previous to this dispute, so that other editors can contribute to the page (that is, if they are allowed to do so). I've been working this issue out through talk pages, and I am not a "vandalism" threat to this page. The vandalism tag does seem to be in use to exclude discussion, as, since getting page protection, these editors have, instead of compromise with me, strengthened the controversial content of the lead. Ideally, my compromise statement about the 1939 Miller case should also be included in the lea, as it is "relatively accurate and harmless." But since the editors have since strengthened the controversial character of the lead, I think the lead would be more neutral if the discussion of Supreme Court cases were removed from the lead altogether and placed under the appropriate subheadings in the body of the article. Inijones (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My term "messed up" was fully explained as referring to the severe process problems here. It was very clear but yet you "missed" and pretended that that was my response to your arguments with "I'm sorry if you see something "messed up" with my line of argumentation" confirms my previous concern that you are being disingenuous and manipulative.

With your :duplication of the above huge amount of material into both places you have made an even bigger mess out of this from a process standpoint, making a further organized discussion impossible. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Inijones: Before you continue, please reconsider posting long messages like the one I just collapsed. As it appears to be also posed on the article's talk page, this is not helpful. Be concise. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the behavior of Inijones here and at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, I am taking this page off my watchlist and will only address issues that Inijones brings up on the apropriate article talk page. I advise others to do likewise. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

• Holocaust denial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This article starts with the following sentence. 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust'. The Holocaust is also used, within wikipedia, e.g. at the page The Holocaust to refer to the Nazi genocide of other groups. Therefore it is entirely approriate that any reference to the Holocaust refer to those other groups. The argument against this is that this article is about Holocaust denial, which specifically denies the genocide of Jews. Holocaust deniers don't really care about denying the genocide of other groups.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs)
• Kwami (talk · contribs)
• WilliamH (talk · contribs)
• Mfhiller (talk · contribs)
• Joel Mc (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Holocaust denial}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have proposed two possible solutions. 1 We include a reference in the introduction of this article to the fact that there are two definitions of the Holocaust, one of which includes all victims of the Nazis, and not just Jewish victims. 2 That we reword the first sentence to be 'Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews during World War II' That would ensure that no single definition is used.

• How do you think we can help?

It may be possible to get one of my suggestions above, or another suitable solution agreed. I think that there is a misunderstanding about what I am proposing. I am not trying to change the definition of Holocaust denial to include all victims, but I would like consistency about the use of the word Holocaust throughout wikipedia. It should refer to both accepted definitions wherever it is used, or to neither.

Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust denial discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

What reliable sources can be brought that specifically apply the term "Holocaust denial" to the denial of the genocide of groups other than Jews during WWII? In all my reading on the subject I've never seen the term "Holocaust denial" applied to anything other than the denial of the extermination of Jews, not to the denial of the extermination of other groups, making the term "Holocaust denial" a specifically anti-Semitic term. Zad68 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what we've been asking for DLDD all along. He's been able to come up with examples of writers criticizing Holocaust denial themselves defining the Holocaust as including others than Jews, but not with examples of either HD being defined as denying other victims of the Holocaust or other writers saying that HD involves denying such other victims. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

neither of these comments relate to the definition of the Holocaust which is the subject of the dispute.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That's your problem in the first place; you fail to recognize that the article is about Holocaust denial, which deals only with Jews; readers are eminently capable of clicking on the Holocaust article if they want more details about the Holocaust and its broader interpretation (which is not the intepretation Holocaust deniers are concerned with.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

that is simply not correct. I have clearly stated that I accept the same definition of HD as you have just given. The dispute is as to why one definition of the Holocaust is used here when it would be so simple to give both, or neither. Wikipedia, having accepted that there are two definitions should be consistent throughout. It should not be left to the reader to check that for themselves. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong, you are asking "why [is] one definition of the Holocaust is used here"? And here is the answer: Because that's the definition the reliable sources use. If the reliable sources don't talk about "Holocaust denial" referring to denial of the genocide of groups of people other than Jews, I can't see what Wikipedia policy-based reason there would be for putting it in the article. Holocaust mentions that there is a minority use of the term "Holocaust" as referring to groups other than Jews, and it is backed up to a source. What source can you bring that uses "Holocaust denial" in reference to other groups? If we don't have one, then until we can find one, I don't see a reason for putting it in the article. Zad68 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is pointless. DLDD simply refuses to accept reality. I'm quite sympathetic to attempts to correct Holocaust coverage to include the Roma, who as one of two nations targeted for complete extermination suffered just as badly as the Jews but are generally ignored today. But Holocaust denial is not motivated by antiziganism (or by homophobia, or by able-ism, or whatever), but by antisemitism. This is much like arguments that "antisemitism" includes hatred of Arabs, because Arabs speak a Semitic language, when the term was explicitly coined as a synonym for "Jew hatred". He fails to understand that terms have meanings, and that "Holocaust denial", like "antisemitism", is a term with a meaning.

If DLDD can find sources for this, it could be included per WEIGHT, which would almost certainly mean we wouldn't give it more than a passing mention. But it's up to DLDD to find those sources. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

again, this dispute is not about the definition of HD. That is not disputed. My RS for their being more than one definition of the Holocaust is the Holocaust article in wikipedia. I have made this very clear. So far no one has addressed my point. The analogy to the meaning of anti semitism completely misses the point, and is irrelevant. The motivation for HD is completely irrelevant. I do not have to find any sources, they are already in wikipedia. Can we please discuss why this article does not reflect the wikipedia article on the Holocaust, which gives two definitions of tha Holocaust?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

here is the wikipeda article on the Holocaust. The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[3] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.[5] In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.[9].Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Response back to you is still here, you haven't addressed it or brought a source that talks about "Holocaust denial", despite your edit summary. Zad68 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

He simply doesn't understand how words are used. If he hasn't understood by now, I doubt he's going to get it from this discussion.

DLDD, your time would be better spent on the Holocaust article, which I see has now degenerated. (The killing of Soviet POWs was not genocide. The targeted 'final solution' of the Roma was. I don't know how we can equate the two, as we now do in the lead, without feeling ill.) — kwami (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

still no one can address the point. Why not include both accepted definitions, or neither? Only including one is POV. No one is wiling to discuss this point. No one has referred to my two suggested resolutions above.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Zad68. All RS..All refute that there is only definition of the Holocaust.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/the-Holocaust http://www.holocaust-education.dk/holocaust/hvadhvemhvor.asp

http://library.thinkquest.org/12663/summary/what.html http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/the-holocaust

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/educational/edResource/definition.html

http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/the-holocaust-45. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is disagreeing with the definition of "the Holocaust". We are disagreeing about the relevance of the extended definition of "Holocaust" to the subject of "Holocaust denial", of which there appears to be none. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong, this distinction was pointed out to you many times on the Holocaust denial talk page and you acknowledged this point several times. You explicitly stated, "Please show me where I claiming that all definitions of the Nazi holocaust apply to Holocaust denial? I certainly do not intend to claim that." Isn't this a fair description of what you are currently seeking to do? When an editor informed you that, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews", you responded, "agreed. I have never disputed this". Your above assertion belies your various responses on the talk page, and I request that you explain this apparent inconsistency, and the revisiting of a problem that I thought had been resolved.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dalai, your whole complaint is based on nothing but a straw man. The phrase in question, "..the genocide of Jews during World War II, usually referred to as the Holocaust" is not a "definition of the holocaust". It is stupid to say that it is. Zargulon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil. If it is not a definition, then why not remove it as I suggested? Thank you for being the first person to recognise the dispute. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that something should be removed because you think that it is "not a definition"? Zargulon (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. Rather than let this discussion drag on any longer, I have to note that I'm not seeing any support for the edit (or any similar edit) proposed by Dalai lama ding dong. It appears to me that DLDD has made the argument for the edit to the best of his/her ability and is not being misunderstood. While several opponents have objected to the edit on the basis of inadequate sourcing and have indicated a willingness to consider the edit if reliable sources were to be provided for it, they have not accepted the sources which DLDD has provided to this point. It must be borne in mind that even if the proposed edit were supported by unassailable reliable sources and was indisputably relevant to the topic of this article that nothing can be included in a Wikipedia article unless there is consensus for its inclusion. Under the current circumstances it appears that there is an clear consensus against the inclusion of this edit and that, unless several of the opponents indicate that they are still on the fence on this issue, further discussion of it will be, at the very least, inappropriate and disruptive. For that reason, I will close this discussion as resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this message unless in the meantime a substantial number of the opponents to the edit indicate that they wish for it to be continued. If this discussion is so closed, I would also suggest that DDLD should consider his only option for further pursuit of this issue to be the filing of a request for comments at the article talk page, as any further advocacy for it elsewhere might be considered disruptive editing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite simply original research to say that Holocaust denial, the title of the article being discussed, applies to non-Jews, in the absence of a source. All material must be sourced. All material added must be verifiable. There is no source in support of the implication that DLDD wishes to put into the article: that "holocaust denial" encompasses denial of the tragedy of death and destruction to befall non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. The reason for this is that there is no "denial" of the death and destruction that befell non-Jews in mid twentieth century Europe. Holocaust denial is not just for the purpose of contradiction. Another aim of holocaust denial is the infliction of mental anguish. Holocaust denial is a present day manifestation of antisemitism. Holocaust denial is an expression of antisemitism because it requires a response. The response can be psychologically painful but such responses must be delivered in order to counter the falsehood of such claims, thus "holocaust deniers" accomplish a purpose, an antisemitic purpose, even if their arguments are effectively responded to. Antisemitism thus serves as the motivation for "holocaust denial" and of course this is a motivation confined to Jews. Thus there is a bifurcation between the scope of the term "holocaust" and the scope of the term "holocaust denial". Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I generally support DLDD's complaints insofar as the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Almost all secondary sources (e.g., historians, sociologists, etc.) almost take for granted by now that the Nazis systematically murdered many groups and that we refer to this systematic murder as the holocaust. There are many questions still about the holocaust, when exactly it began, who was targeted, and so on. The article on the holocaust is clear here but certainly does not as some people have suggested consign broader definitions of the holocaust to minority usage. DLDD is asking - and myself - to have the (implied) definition of the holocaust given in the article on holocaust denial brought in line with the broader definition given in the article on the holocaust. Second, I completely disagree with anyone who says that holocaust denial has only ever been anti-semetic. This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of holocaust denial. Has anyone here besides DLDD actually read or heard David Irving, who is in my mind the most sophisticated holocaust denier on the planet today? Irving certainly is an anti-semite, but he is many other things too... and the crux of his message is that the Nazis did not embark in any way whatsoever on a course of killing their opponents. I suppose that, given Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, Irving can't be considered a proper source. OK, I'll just have to find someone now who discusses Irving and points to the many places in which he does deny the holocaust broadly speaking. Cheers. Mfhiller (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

The issue here is not your definition of the Holocaust, nor your understanding of David Irving's statements, but rather what reliable sources state about Holocaust denial. They define it as an activity directed against Jews, and more specifically as an antisemitic conspiracy theory. There's a reason that Holocaust denial books have names like Did Six Million Really Die?, not Did Eleven Million Really Die?. As Kenneth Stern wrote in 2006, "Holocaust Denial is not about the Holocaust, but about Jews" (Antisemitism Today, p. 79). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mfhiller says, the article on holocaust denial implies a narrow definition of the holocaust. Yes, it does, because our reliable sources show us that holocaust denial is about a narrow definition of the Holocaust. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept the points about holocaust denial being an "antisemitic conspiracy theory"/ holocaust denial about a "narrow definition of the holocaust". The article on holocaust denial, however, mentions none of this and I think this has been part of the dispute all along. Something of this sort should be included - discussion of terms. The aim after all is just to make the article better, right? Mfhiller (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I withdraw the closing notice which I gave above, as the consensus against inclusion was not quite so clear as I thought it was. However, I would again note that under this provision of the consensus policy that once an edit has been challenged that a positive consensus for its inclusion must be established or it cannot be included and there is nothing close to that here, nor any indication that this discussion might be moving in the direction of the formation of such a consensus. I would suggest to DLDD and Mfhiller that if they wish their desired edit to be included in the article, the best opportunity to obtain a consensus in their favor without improper canvassing would be to file a request for comment at the article page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article on Holocaust denial is not "about a narrow definition of the Holocaust", it is about Holocaust denial. Phrases often don't mean what their constituent words may or may not superficially suggest, and it is not necessary to belabour this fact in the lead of the article, which currently defines "holocaust denial" accurately and concisely. Zargulon (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Zargulon, the article on holocaust denial does not define holocaust denial accurately at all in so far as the first sentence inaccurately implies an exclusionary definition of the holocaust. There is a good suggestion now on the talk page for holocaust denial, something to the effect of "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the extermination of Jews during the holocaust." What I and others have been objecting to is a statement like "Holocaust denial is the act of denying the extermination of Jews, usually referred to as the holocaust." Of course the article on holocaust denial is about holocaust denial: therefore it should not assume a controversial definition of the holocaust that implies that the term "holocaust" only refers to the extermination of Jews. It isn't just a controversial definition, it is blatantly false. Mfhiller (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

No Mfhiller, the first sentence does not imply any definition of the Holocaust - you are making a wrong inference from that sentence. Please read it again carefully and try not to be influenced by what you may want it to mean. Zargulon (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

transporter man, there is an excellent suggestion for a re wording on the HD talk page. It is supported by myself and mfhiller. Can I copy it over here?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

the user Rip-Saw has proposed the suggestion for re-wording that is supported also by DLDD and myself. It is a minor change that only reflects the definition of the holocaust already given in the article on the holocaust. For consistency's sake only, please, let's change this accordingly. Mfhiller (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Zargulon, yes the first sentence does imply a definition of the holocaust and I am not making a wrong inference; how can I when the relative clause says exactly, by way of grammar, that the holocaust is defined by the extermination of Jews? The article is about holocaust denial, not about the holocaust, and the article about the holocaust already states quite explicitly that the holocaust involved many groups the Nazis found unacceptable. This is already conceding quite a lot actually, given that there have been many holocausts and that there isn't just one but many holocaust denials. Mfhiller (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

• 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

1) The lead states that Merah wished to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank", and is based on this opinion piece. Other sources quote Merah's exact words, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine" and report this aspect of his motivation differently, without ascribing the actions of "the Jews" to the "Israeli forces", or limiting the deaths of Palestinian children to specific regions. I would prefer the lead to reflect how Merah's comments were widely reported. See 1234567 Resolved

2) Based on this source I added to Sarkozy's other thoughts on these attacks, that he noted an antisemitic motive. This was improved upon with this edit by Vice regent. Since I have been repeatedly accused of "misrepresenting the source", but no suggestions of improvement have been offered, can you advise me how to accurately present this information. Vice regent, contrary to his previous edit, is now entirely opposed to its inclusion, and I am concerned at the apparent tag-teaming, which has previously been commented on by an admin. My suggestions have twice been stymied with a "Let's wait and see what the other editor has to say".12

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Vice regent (talk · contribs)
• Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs)
• AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on talk page

• How do you think we can help?

Assess the merits of my statement, and suggest a rewording that would reflect Merah's implication of the "the Jews", and would make note of the antisemitic motive.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

1) Reading the Grant article, it's clear that his goal is not to accurately define the motives of the shooter, but to caution against drawing conclusions about motive too quickly. His opinion is more along the lines of "The shooter was quickly (and incorrectly) presumed to be a member of one group, so we must condem that group. But in reality he was a member of some other group, and already people are condemning that group. Let's all stop rushing to judgement." His statement that "The Jewish children were killed to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank." is not his opinion, he's just stating what the collective press/governmental/man-on-the-street opinion is at that moment. In fact, later in the article, he states the true message of his writing: "The point here should be clear: it is far too easy to shift responsibility away from the man and onto the environment in which he operates, and to advance a given political agenda accordingly." As such, I don't think using this article to source a statement that Merah's motivation was to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank" is accurate interpretation of the source. In any case, any time you can quote the direct words of the person, it's better.

2) Sarkozy clearly said it, it was quoted in a reliable source, so I see no issue with including it. It's especially relevant because Sarkozy did not attribute the act to any specific group, but simply commented on the motive. I think the edit by Vice regent clearly and accurately summarizes the quote and puts it in the right context.

Those are my 2 cents, anyway. I would encourage you three to continue to work together on this, as you're all clearly motivated to get the article right. This is a massively good thing. Waiting for commentary by the third person in a three-way dispute can be frustrating, but is in the end the best policy to prevent protracted edit warring. Good luck! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My observations:

1. Although The Telegraph is a WP:RS, Grant is writing his column as an opinion piece and not as a reporter. If something from his column were to be used in the article, it'd have to be attributed to him, "George Grant says that..." However, given the seven good, reliable sources that Ankh.Morpork provides with a direct quote from Merah himself, there's absolutely no reason (no Wikipedia policy-based reason, anyway) to try to base this statement in the article, written in Wikipedia's voice, on a Grant opinion column. Use the direct quote from Merah, in quotation marks, attributed to Merah.
2. I actually prefer Ankh's version over VC's, but I do not like Ankh's "noted" because that indicates (in Wikipedia's voice) that there are anti-Semitic motives when there may not be. I would go a step further to use a direct quote from Sarkozy, because we have one. I would write,

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious," and also said "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man."

He didn't say those two things together, according to the sources, so the article should not say "adding." Both thoughts needs to be attributed to Sarkozy, in the contexts he said them. I also would avoid "though" because that makes it seem (however slightly) that it would be natural to assume that something anti-Semitic would naturally be in accord with Islam. Zad68 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Would "Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious" and later added/said that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man" be appropriate?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If the sources indicate that's the order in which he made his comments, yes. Zad68 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I find Zad68's analysis compelling; if there are already seven good, reliable sources providing a direct quote from Merah, then why would the article rely on an opinion piece by George Grant? And since we have Sarkozy's statement, the article should simply quote it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with much of what is above but, given the politicised nature of the response to the murders, the article should generally avoid using quotes from politicians to narrate facts. So, a quote from Sarkozy will be fine in the context of a section about responses, but not in the context of material trying to pin down a motive for the crimes. Formerip (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Can someone, perhaps AnkhMorpork, propose how the direct quote would be used? My primary objection to that has been the redundancy of the material. That's fine in the body, but in the lede saying the same thing twice gives it undue weight.

Might I propose the following: Merah said his actions were to "avenge Palestinian children". Many reliable sources, not opinion pieces, report this (BBC Sky News Al-Arabiya etc.).

2. Sarkozy cited antisemitism as a motivation at a time the French authorities believed this attack to be that of a neo-Nazi (please read the source) and not Merah. So while, we can include Sarkozy's remarks, it would be misleading to say that Sarkozy said this about Merah.

Its best to add Sarkozy's remarks on antisemitism in the 2nd paragraph of the lede, which talks about events preceding the Merah's identification as the perpetrator. The remarks on Islam should go in the 3r/4th paragraph.

VR _talk 03:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently what Merah said was "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered - it's almost as if the fact that the children he deliberately shot and killed were Jews had nothing to do with Merah killing them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly would you phrase it? How about: Merah said he attacked the Jewish school to avenge Palestinian children source1source2.VR _talk 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since your primary objection has been "redundancy of material", do you agree to using Merah's exact words as recommended by Livitup, Zad68, Jayjg and FormerIP, and stating: Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". Your last two suggestions have failed to address my concern, reiterated with Jayjg's comment, "The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree to using Merah's exact words, and "avenge Palestinian children" has been cited by reliable sources as Merah's exact words. My above suggestion does use the word "Jewish". What is it that the word "Jew" conveys, that the word "Jewish" does not?

In any case, I'm willing to compromise on this minor difference if it means faster dispute resolution.VR _talk 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You above suggestion contracted Merah's statement and I shall accentuate what was omitted. Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You are conflating the description of the school as "Jewish", with what "the Jews" did in Palestine, which should both be specified when describing Merah's motivation. Are you agreeable to this change?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Information from some of the sources that were posted above:

Source 2 above states, "says he wanted to avenge Palestinian children, according to his remarks through the door to the police who urged him to surrender"

Source 3 states, "French interior minister Claude Gueant said Merah had said he was fighting to 'avenge Palestinian children.'"

Source 6 states, "to have killed the Jewish children out of vengeance for the suffering of Palestinian children"

Source 7 states, "the killings were to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children"

• In other words, we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote when describing this.

• Also, if you look at sources 4 and 5, the quote is in the present tense, not past: "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A shared characteristic is that all these sources see fit to report Merah's exact comments regarding this issue. Considering other editors' comments, and your stated objection is "we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote", are you agreeable to reporting Merah's exact words?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This quote is already in the article (See Motivation section). If we decide to put it in the lead as well, then the context needs to be presented. From Source #5 above: "Asked why he had killed four Jewish people – including three children – at a school in Toulouse on March 19, he said: 'The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine.'" --- I will comment on the stuff regarding Sarkozy later. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How would you like the context of this exact quote to be presented? I had previously suggested, "Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You seem to prefer the present tense of "kill" used in source 5. This is fine with me; do you consent to, ""Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine"?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So I think there are multiple things Merah said. He said "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". He also said he attacked the school to "avenge Palestinian children". So, we have two proposals.

• Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine."
• Merah said he attacked the Jewish school to "avenge Palestinian children".

Both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets, although the first one mentions it twice. I prefer the second. Like I said, I'd be willing to compromise because the difference is relatively minor, and there are more significant issues with the article.VR _talk 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You correctly state that both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets. However it is not the case that the first one does so twice, the second mention refers to why Merah did it, a completely different aspect. Thank you for your compromise and I now await for Somedifferentstuff's response to see if he is similarly agreeable.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Putting it in the context of the article:

"Merah's motivation for killing the French soldiers was to attack the French Army for its involvement in the war in Afghanistan; his motivation for killing the Jewish civilians was to avenge Palestinian children, having stated, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine"

This ties in with the description in the first paragraph ("French soldiers and Jewish civilians") and the Ozar Hatorah school is mentioned in the second paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I dislike combining "to avenge Palestinian children", together with the much preferred method of simply stating his exact words, as it is is repetitive and limiting. I would like to specifically state "Jewish school", which is more informative and how many sources report this. Thus I propose, "Merah's stated motivation for attacking the Jewish school was to avenge "our brothers and sisters in Palestine" killed by "the Jews".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Source do state "avenge Palestinian children" as Merah's exact words. I agree that Somedifferentstuff's version is a bit repetitive, but it's the only one that seems to satisfy the requirement of all users here (it mentions both "Palestinian children" and "the Jews").

In any case, the differences between proposed versions are getting insignificant.VR _talk 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as you have expressed agreement with my previous proposal, I politely request that you withdraw from this specific discussion between myself and Somedifferentstuff. Thank you
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the Jewish school together with Merah's "avenge" phrase seems eminently reasonable. This is what brought these murders to international attention. It is odd to find a wiki editor opposing this. Tkuvho (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with using the Jewish school but not okay with chopping his quote. My proposal is: "Merah's motivation for attacking the Jewish school was to avenge Palestinian children, having stated, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." ---- "children" is a key part of this which is sourced and needs to be included. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I accept this form. Can you read the editors' feedback regarding point 2 and explain how you would like the presentation of Sarkozy's comments that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious"?Ankh.Morpork 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the right place to discuss this, but the phrase "his motivation was X, having stated Y" does not sound grammatical. Tkuvho (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are correct. Are these grammatically preferable or can you suggest an improvement? "his motivation was X, stating Y", or "his motivation was X; he stated Y"Ankh.Morpork 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving on to Sarkozy: AnkhMorpork, will you post the exact sentence you want in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001-Present)

• War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

One user keeps deleting the minimum Taliban casualty estimate, linking to a BBC article says no reliable estimate exists. However, the page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan lists reliably sourced reports of Taliban casualties. If we add them up, we get a reliable minimum. Multiple users have tried explaining this on the article's talk page and in the edit summaries. However, the user continues to delete it. Should it be deleted, or is it permissible to combine the reports with math to get a minimum?

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• X Nilloc X (talk · contribs)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs)
• Stumink (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page discussion. Its going nowhere - NickD just reasserts his position.

• How do you think we can help?

Tell us who is right. Should it be done away with, or can the reports be added up?

X Nilloc X (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• This is a bad faith post. This matter is under discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox as well as WP:RSN#Discussion about Taliban/Insurgent casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) infobox. There is little support for X Nilloc X's position (despite what they say above, multiple editors disagree with them, and not just me), yet they keep edit warring this figure back into the article. I have reported them for edit warring at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and this appears to be their response to that (along with further edit warring since I lodged the report). I note that X Nilloc X has only notified the single other editor who agrees with him (as expressed by edit warfare; they've never actually posted on the article's talk page despite me asking them to join the discussion twice) and not the multiple editors who take a different view. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter how many editors hold each position. A reliable source ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/01/reporting_afghanistan_casualti.html ) says:

"In our coverage of Afghanistan, we at BBC News do not generally report the numbers of Taliban or insurgent casualties and fatalities, because there are no reliable or verifiable source figures available."

Wikipedia must report what the sources say, and the sources say that there are no reliable or verifiable figures for Taliban casualties. End of subject unless someone finds a reliable source that directly contradicts the above-quoted source. Counting the numbers in another Wikipedia article is WP:SYNTHESIS and the numbers you get cannot be used to replace a direct statement by a reliable source.

How is it synthesis? That's when you report separate pieces of sourced information and manipulate them to imply a conclusion they don't. All we're doing is basic math - If source A reports "this happened 5 times here", and source B reports "this happened 5 times at this other place", then we can establish reliably that it happened a minimum of 10 times. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You aren't going to get anywhere by writing things that aren't true about Wikipedia's policies. WP:SYNTHESIS does not say not to "manipulate them to imply a conclusion they don't". What WP:SYNTHESIS does say is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Is your conclusion explicitly stated by any of the sources? No. It is not.

As for your "All we're doing is basic math" argument, please read WP:CALC, which states "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources" Do you have that consensus? No. You do not. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, there is a statistical fallacy in play when you count the numbers and add them up. If we assume that the individual sources cited in List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan tried to be accurate (a questionable assumption -- news agencies make money by attempting to panic the readers -- but let's accept it for the sake of argument) then some will be too high and some will be too low. The problem is that there is a limit on being too low (nobody reports a negative number of fatalities) but there is no limit on being too high. This makes the basic idea of adding them up statistically invalid. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The reports are fragmentary, and a lot don't get added to it - so the total is almost certainly higher that what's there. A lot of Taliban fatalities go unknown, given the nature of firefights there (get shot at from far off, shoot back. Repeat process for a while until the shooting stops.) So, its very unlikely the number is too high. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that we are having a discussion about this proves that the calculation is not "an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources". Also, you have not addressed my argument that adding the numbers up is statistically invalid. All you have done is to propose an unsourced theory that, if true, would cause an error of unknown magnitude in the opposite direction. You are getting farther and farther away from a routine calculation that everyone agrees is correct. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to get huffy. A substantial body of reliable sources have made educated guesses on casualty stats for the Taliban. In most contemporary settings, aside from bureaucratically inclined nations, war casualties are just that, guesses. Doing independent math is a violation of WP:SYNTH but there is nothing wrong with sourcing estimates as long as they are recorded as such. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please post what these reliable sources for total casualties are? I haven't been able to find any, and they'd be a very useful addition to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here: [[2]] X Nilloc X (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nilloc X, what part of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not - we're just using basic math. The example the Synthesis page was something like "The UN says its goal is world peace <reference>, but there have been 180 wars since its inception <otherreference>.". In that case, you were combining two references to make it sound like the UN is a failure. That's not what's going on here. All we're doing it look at the reliably sources casualty reports, and adding them up. Its mathematically impossible for the number we get to not be the verified minimum. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding together uncertain numbers from multiple sources is an obvious example of original research. As well as the statistical fallacy that Guy mentioned, some of these reports are probably references to the same incidents. Different news sources often provide slightly different dates and details that make them appear to be distinct. WP:CALC is for simple calculations that there are no grounds to dispute, not for exercises like this. Readers can add the numbers themselves if they want; we shouldn't make the totals appear more meaningful than they really are. Zero^talk 05:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How are they "uncertain"? All the sources say how many were killed. Show me an example on that page where different reports of the same incident have been taken as the same incident. This is a simple calculation, and there is no rational ground to dispute it.

Plus, if there's a problem like that, shouldn't we fix it instead of being like "oh, well, looks like this is broken forever and we should disregard it"? By your logic any page with an error should be disregarded forever. X Nilloc X (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no error to fix. Just a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not so. WP:CALC clearly allows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X Nilloc X (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources" are you having trouble understanding? If English is a second language for you or you have some sort of learning disability, I will be happy to explain it in detail. Just tell me which part you don't understand. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious, correct, and meaningful. Most people who have been to the page have left it, so they seem to agree. There's just a strange, small group of people who are (for some odd reason) obsessed with getting it removed. You're not explaining: if we take each verified report as reliable (as is Wikipedia policy), then by definition they are all reliable. So, adding them up is basic arithmetic. Your resistance to it doesn't make any sense X Nilloc X (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation dispute on automotive topic

• Street and Racing Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dodge SRT-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User RTShadow consistently reverts citations to a source with a questionable reputation and no formal expertise on the subject matter from a reputable source with many decades in automotive journalism and testing.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• RTShadow (talk · contribs)
• 99.144.70.71 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Citation dispute on automotive topic}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have debated with RTShadow on the subject and provided two reputable sources while proving his source as unreliable due to lack of expert knowledge on the subject matter.

• How do you think we can help?

blocking carthrottle.com as a citation or flagging it as questionable.

99.144.70.71 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation dispute on automotive topic discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• My observations are: 1) You have not discussed this enough at the article Talk page to bring it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and 2) This appears to be a dispute over whether carthrottle.com is a reliable source. Take "carthrottle.com" to the reliable sources noticeboard. I did a search on the RSN history and carthrottle.com has not been discussed there yet. I took a quick look at the carthrottle.com "About us" page and it appears to be in the same general reliability category as caranddriver.com--they are both advertising-based industry specialist publications with editorial boards. However, caranddriver.com is much bigger and more well-established. Take this to WP:RSN. Zad68 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episodes

• List of Friends episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Friends (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

TheRamblingMan and AussieLegend and other users debate over what style to use in List of Friends episodes. None can agree what to do, and there were condemnations toward each other's edits, including transclusions of Season articles. It is also discussed in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1. Speaking of transclusions, I did make changes to make the list edited as what every episode list is supposed to be, but I'm not sure if I'm counted as part of the dispute because everything is changed in other articles transcluded in the list article. Nevertheless, |RTitle= is used rather than |Title=.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• <Do I count? If not, strike me out. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)>
• Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Two contacted. If I'm missing more, then feel free to include them above. --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted Lemonade51 (talk · contribs), but I'm not sure if he is part of this dispute. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Friends episodes}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I haven't done much to resolve this dispute. In the article talk page, I suggested here is the best way.

• How do you think we can help?

It's not as messy as List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes, but I need an expert on lists of any sort and another expert on TV episode lists.

George Ho (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Friends episodes discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state

• List of sovereign states in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of sovereign states in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of sovereign states in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of sovereign states in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of world map changes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Before the edit war, Palestine was included as a sovereign state. Basically, there are constant reversions of having it included or not.

[3] is one example by 99.237.236.218

[4] is one example by Spesh531

[5] is one example by Night w

[6] is one example by Strike

[7] is one example by Chipmunkdavis

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Spesh531 (talk · contribs)
• 99.237.236.218 (talk · contribs)
• Night w (talk · contribs)
• Shrike (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)

User:Spesh531 (me) and User:99.237.236.218 have been in this dispute since February, and we were both blocked starting May 5, at around 3:00 UTC for edit warring.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Palestine is/is not a sovereign state}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

No

• How do you think we can help?

Hopefully we can try and put an end to this conflict, and stop the edit warring.

–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I suggest you check the Oslo Accords which the so-called "Palestinians" signed. They prove that so-called "Palestine" is NOT a sovereign nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DionysosElysees (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, before we go any further, we have an important announcement from our friends at the Arbitration Committee

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Now we have that out of the way, let's remember to stay civil here. Having taken a look at the page history I see potentially having to call in some members of Arbitration Enforcement if people don't behave themselves. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The reach of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on wikipedia is truly impressive. There was a previous conversation with the IP at Talk:List of world map changes#Palestine declares independence in 1988 started by Spesh but continued by the IP and myself, which I think counts as a form of previously attempted dispute resolution, and which can be read over. I made a revert/edit to one of the decade-specific articles complying with the edit summary as I received the ARBCOM warning, so I didn't see the warning till afterwards. I think the return to the status quo was the correct edit, BRD spirit and all that, but I'm happy to self-revert if that was a mistake. CMD (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• As long as you acknowledge the receipt of the warning, I don't think it'll be a problem. Typically those notifications are for unrepentent warriors Hasteur (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)