Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 83

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

→

Archive 90

First Indochina War

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mztourist on 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mztourist (talk · contribs) Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Previous consensus was that the outcome in the Infobox should not state that the result was a Viet Minh victory as the war took place in three countries: Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the outcome decided at the Geneva Conference saw the partition of Vietnam, the independence of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and the departure of the French. It is simplistic to describe it as a Viet Minh victory, particularly as the Viet Minh were forced to settle for control of only North Vietnam. Recently some Users have changed the infobox to Viet Minh victory and they seek to support this change with a variety of POV or otherwise non-reliable sources, including out of context or shorthhand quotes (lacking any quality analysis) from authors who are not scholars of the First Indochina War. There are a limited number of reliable sources for the outcome of the First Indochina War and the majority do not say that it was a Viet Minh victory. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the Talk Page How do you think we can help? Independent evaluation of quotes and RS Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines Viet Minh won, sources say they won, the sources are reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging Darkness Shines was certainly right to revert this edit, in which Mztourist alters sourced material simply because he disagrees with it. The facts are not in dispute: The Viet Minh achieved military victory but suffered political defeat. After looking at this a bit more closely, I can understand why Mztourist would want to omit the "victory" label altogether in favor of a more nuanced description, but misrepresenting sources (changing the source's "Viet Minh victory" to "French defeat") is not an ideal solution. I don't have much experience working on comparable infoboxes, but I would like to know how other war articles handle this type of problem. Is "victory" commonly used to summarize results? Does the failure of the victorious party to achieve all of their war aims impact the results summary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC) First Indochina War discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. I'd like to say a few words before this kicks off because I see a procedural snag. Mztourist claims that there was a prior consensus which established the version of the results box before this edit by Darkness Shines which attempts to introduce the Viet Minh victory. There was, indeed, a substantial prior discussion here which resulted in that version, which has been in the article for several months. That discussion included the Viet Minh victory question. Here's the problem from DRN's point of view: Under this section of the Consensus policy, if there was a prior consensus — and I believe that there was, especially since there were other editors (AustralianRupert and Anotherclown) who supported Mztourist's position there — then the only way the article text can be changed in a way contrary to that prior consensus is by the formation of a new consensus. That means that this DRN discussion can only be productive if, given the current participants, Mztourist can be convinced to change his mind, perhaps with a DRN volunteer's assistance though it is also possible that the volunteer will remain neutral or, of course, side with Mztourist. If Darkness Shines and TheTimesAreAChanging do not feel that to be likely, then their only practical choices are to either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk page to try to bring other editors from the community into the discussion, in which case this DRN listing will be closed. On the other hand, we can move forward with discussion here if they think that they can change Mztourist's mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC) I see no prior consensus to remove this at that link, I see various people being worn down by attrition, that is not a consensus. We do not remove reliably sourced content because one guy don't like it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) abbreviated out of context statements by authors who are not experts on the Indochina War are not RS Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging says the facts are not in dispute and the Viet Minh acheived military victory. That is simply incorrect, the Viet Minh won several decisive battles, but they did not militarily win the war. The war didn't end April 1975 style with the Viet Minh capturing Hanoi and Saigon, it ended (like many modern wars do) at the negotiating table at Geneva, where the Viet Minh accepted partition and control of only North Vietnam. Those are the facts. The other point to note is that Indochina War means the war in 3 countries - Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the Viet Minh won in northern Vietnam not anywhere else. Saying the Viet Minh won the Indochina War is the same as saying the North Vietnamese won the Vietnam War, something that TheTimesAreAChanging has corrected several times recently. The reason why I suggested "French defeat" was because I was growing weary of this debate and sought an outcome statement that might be acceptable. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I'll try and assist as a volunteer, as it seems this section hasn't received any attention in about a week. What is the current status of the dispute? It seems to me that an accurate overview of the conflict's outcome should be posted in the "result" field; what do participants believe is accurate here, based on WP:RS? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I had understood that based on TransporterMan's comments above that he agreed that there was an existing consensus and that parties who wished to diverge from that consensus should "either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk". Darkness Shines made no constructive response to this and has not filed the RFC and so I assumed that he accepted this, however when I deleted "Viet Minh victory" to reinstate the previous consensus he reverted this and continues to try to push non-RS references. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC) There was no prior consensus, plenty of sources have been given on the talk page which state very clearly that the VM won the war, Mztourist is now saying that military historians are not RS, which is obviously wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) User:Theodore! this case is scheduled to auto archive on Dec 6th. You may want to extend that if you are going to continue with the case. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I think some participants are interested in an RfC to examine source reliability. If others are, I would suggest going there. If not, I will continue with the discussion here. I won't extend the archive date yet; hopefully we will be able to figure things out today or tomorrow. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I've extended the auto archive date to Dec 10th. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Involuntary Celibacy article

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 99.245.191.227 on 18:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alchewizzard (talk · contribs) 99.245.191.227 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Alchewizzard is reverting the page "Involuntary celibacy" back to its July 2013 version, undoing 6 months of edits that have been discussed on the talk page. The first time the article was rewritten, it was reverted by a different user. Since then, the article has been systematically and slowly improved, with sources and discussion on the talk page, however all that work is being undone by Alchewizzard. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The first time the article was reverted, I undid the edit and explained myself. He then reverted the edit with a pseduo-threatening "WARN TO TROLLS AND VANDALS." How do you think we can help? Can you determine whether the edits since July (and more recently since the November revert) really do represent trolling as Alchewizzard claims? Summary of dispute by Alchewizzard Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 99.245.191.227 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Involuntary Celibacy article discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karna's talk page

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Pinkfloyd11 on 20:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Karna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pinkfloyd11 (talk · contribs) Abecedare (talk · contribs) Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Basically, there is disagreement over the length and sourcing of the Karna article. While I think we all agree that the article can be shortened by changing prose, the primary disagreement is over content. One side is contending that the article is too boring, too long, and is violating wikipedia policy by including primary sources. The other side is contending that while the prose could be bettered to deviate from in-universe view, the article may be required to be long to fit wikipedia guidelines on building a fictional character biography. Also, that primary sources can be used in an article to describe "plot" of a story, and just not in analysis or interpretation. @Dharma: Consensus is not determined by counting heads. Yes, you asked me to stay out of it for a week. I then proposed certain guidelines for you to follow in that week. You never responded and proceeded with edits that violated those conditions. Yet I still did not revert anything and tried to engage y'all with little result. I think in your desire to avoid "mumbo jumbo", you end up providing no examples and no context. Hence, your arguments devolve into "content should be "x way" because "x way" is good, because "x way" is good. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Maybe this isn't the place for it, but stop with the Personal Attacks, remember Wikipedia:Etiquette and don't bite the newcomers. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC) I would hardly call any of those things that I did complicated or requiring experience. It is wikipedia, not the cracking of CIA code. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've posted to the talk page per BRD, referencing specific examples and referencing wikipedia guidelines. Some of my contentions really haven't been answered. The editors in questioned have expressed their frustration at the length of my posts. They've gone ahead and done some very massive edits without discussion. They've suggested I go to this board. I've wanted to avoid it, but they aren't leaving me much choice. Of course this is only "my" side. How do you think we can help? Maybe clarify the wikipedia guidelines relevant to this dispute? Help judge what kind of plot content is relevant to the analysis? Answer the question if articles like the one in type have a set length limit? Fundamentally, I want them to engage in conversation with me. A lot of what I am hearing is "primary sources are bad because they are bad" or "delete content because it should be deleted". They want me to refute their specific points while not expecting the same of themselves.... Summary of dispute by Abecedare Background The article is about a character from the Indian epis Mahabharata and the dispute as I see it is regarding how much space should be devoted to simple character bio based on (translations or paraphrases of) the primary source (ie, the Mahabharata) versus what secondary sources have said on the subject. For future reference, the starting point for discussion was this version of the article. My view Essentially copying from my post on the article talk page: The article needs drastic pruning from the in-universe mess that it currently is (On a quick look, sections 2-7 need to be combined into a single 2-4 paragraph summary.) The aim of an encyclopedic article such is this one is not to to provide a cliffs note version of Mahabharata, but rather to concentrate on what modern scholars have had to say about the subject; his portrayal; possible inspirations and archetypes; cultural, literary and religious significance etc. Quotes and paraphrases from Mahabharata should be very limited, comparable to say a plot section of a well developed movie or book article Here is a sample list of high quality secondary sources on the subject that can used to improve the article by any interested editor. I may give it a try, but will probably not get to it till December. Suggestion I think WP:ADOPT or WP:30 would be better avenues for resolving the issues, but have no objection if DRN is preferred by Pinkfloyd11, since an "outside opinion" can often be helpful. Note though that there have been two previous such attempts: I myself entered the picture after seeing this post on the Hinduism Project Noticeboard, and initially commented on the article talk page User:Mdebellis responded to an earlier post at the Teahouse and left this comment Lets hope, the third time is a charm! :-) Summary of dispute by Dharmadhyaksha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. @Pinkfloyd11: I had left the article to allow you to do whatever pleased you. You said we should have consensus and do nothing without that. Two more editors, and the only two present there beside you and me, are okay with the way i am going towards cleaning this article. Thats WP:CONSENSUS dear. In fact, they both suggested that the article should be deleted and started from stub again which i felt unnecessary. Further to that, on 22nd Nov i asked you to stay out of the business for a week (that's generally 7 days on Earth). There is no dispute at all to run to the DRN; at least yet. Come back after 7 days when the article is ready. And remember WP:WALL. No one reads all this mumbo jumbo. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC) With a click, any version of the article can be restored any time. Only if you could keep out and let other editors work, you would know what we are doing. There is so much fuss you created and that too without knowing whats in my or other's mind. So quit wasting everyone's time and edit something else; or better still just go away forever. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Newcomer? 14 days back you were using dabsolver and creating new articles. If you consider yourself old enough to create articles directly in article space, i would think you are exceptionally good or a sock of some blocked account and not a actual newcomer. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Karna discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'm Theodore, a DRN volunteer. I will assist with this discussion, if participants are still interested in holding one. As I am also involved in three other ongoing discussions, my responses may be somewhat delayed; however, I will try to be as punctual as possible. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC) The editor who filed this is inactive. That's how the dispute is resolved i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Theodore for taking this up. When Pinkfloyd returns, we can continue with the process. I may be a bit tardy this week, but will try to respond within the day to any messages. Abecedare (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC) [User:Theodore!], I've forwarded the auto archive bot date to Dec 15th. Feel free to adjust further as needed. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks much! I'll continue to monitor this; as Abecedare has said, we can kick off the actual discussion when Pinkfloyd is back. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) I'm back. Shall we start the discussion? Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Sounds good! —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC) I don't want to re-hash what has been posted here and on the Karna talk page. Basically, Dharma and Abecedare are contending that the article is too long and violating several wikipedia policies (namely in-universe, article length, and use of primary sources), and have cut 30,000+ characters from the article. Abecedare specifically cut around 17,000 characters with little explanation, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I am contending that while the article needs cleanup, it isn't violating those policies. In universe doesn't say anything about not using primary sources. In fact, the Karna article violates it by not using the correct tense and perhaps at time referring to Karna as a real figure, and not a fictional one. Wikipedia frown on the analysis of primary sources, not the use of them specifically; to tell the role of Karna in the mahabhartha, primary sources need to be relied on. According to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and character article, I think that the article requires a lot of text to provide the readers with context; context that has now been deleted. Secondly, I would aledge that part of the reason that article is so long, is that there are multiple "primary source" accounts. There are many different versions of what Karna does in the Mahabhartha. Unless it is a supreme minority view, I don't know how you can delete them and just keep the story element from one or two primary sources in order to keep a short article. Pinkfloyd11 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Two quick points, since they seem to have been missed: I don't think the article is too long. It is the plain character bio part of the article that was unduly long before some much needed pruning by Dharmadhyaksha (the current version can be further tightened but is much improved). The rest of the article, which deals with secondary analysis of Karna, can and should be significantly expanded. If there are multiple accounts of significant events related to Karna discussed by secondary sources, do include them while citing the relevant Mahabharata recension or secondary literature where they appear, and, preferably, alongside (sourced, scholarly) analysis of the significance of the variation. The Secondary literature and media section of the article was recently created just for this purpose, and can be gainfully expanded using sources listed here. I'll step back for now and let user:Theodore! weigh in. Do let me know if there are any specific issues that you'd like me to address though. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Sorry for the delay in responding here! I'll post a few comments shortly; I have a few real-life things to wrap up before I do. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Closing notice This dispute has been here for 15 days with little participation; it also has been stale for two days. I will close the dispute in around 12 hours if nothing relevant can be brought to it. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Shusha

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Grandmaster on 23:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Shusha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Grandmaster (talk · contribs) Hablabar (talk · contribs) Brandmeister (talk · contribs) Roses&guns (talk · contribs) Zimmarod (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A detailed explanation was provided here by another user. In short, there's a long running dispute at talk of the article with regard to the foundation of the town. While it is generally accepted (including by major encyclopedias) that the town was founded in 1752, there are also a few primary sources of questionable reliability that may suggest otherwise. In my opinion, presenting the early foundation as a fact despite this view being in minority and contrary to the generally accepted view being the mid-18th century foundation is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. The issue requiring a resolution is how to present the conflicting views on the foundation of the town in accordance with the wiki rules. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The issue was reported by one of the involved editors to WP:FTN, but it did not generate any outcome. How do you think we can help? An outside view and an active involvement of the wider wiki community would be very helpful. Responding briefly to Hablabar, if pre-1752 foundation is a widely accepted opinion in the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a bunch of third party secondary sources supporting this viewpoint. So far you only refer to primary sources, reliability of some of which is highly questionable. But as Brandmeister convincingly demonstrated, all the major encyclopedias and other third party secondary sources point to 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan. Now if there are different views on the subject of foundation, then according to WP:Weight all notable viewpoints need to be presented in accordance to their weight. As for the "composite timeline" mentioned by Hablabar, it is nothing but WP:OR and WP:Synth, where he merged two mutually exclusive views to present as a fact the existence of the town in medieval times, while this view is clearly not shared by most of the sources. Grandmaster 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC) the existence of the town in medieval times and the 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan are not mutually exclusive, because pre-1752 mentions refer to town and fort, while 1752 references point to a settlement that was slated to evolve into a city in the 19th c. Your sources are in minority not those which talk about pre-1752. Hablabar (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC) That is your personal interpretation of the sources and as such is a WP:OR. If a source says that the city was founded in 1752, you cannot imply anything more than it actually says, and combine it with others to imply things that the source did not say. That is a violation of WP:Synth, which holds: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Plus, there are sources that say that the town was built on an empty spot, so claiming as a fact something that contradicts other sources is not in line with the rules. In addition, most primary sources claiming pre-1752 foundation refer to the nearby village by the same name, and not the town of Shusha, and the secondary academic sources supporting this view are lacking. Grandmaster 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hablabar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute arises from User:Grandmaster mischaracterizes the situation as an issue of WP:Weight in order to avoid the creative handling of timeline. He says that ostensibly the majority of sources say that Shusha was established in 1752. However, the credibility of primary sources making such statements is dubious, as demonstrated on talk pages in Shusha. Also, spinning the discussion around the majority or minority of sources can be viewed as WP:OR, unless there is a secondary source discussing the majority or minority issue in explicit terms. As it was demonstrated, mentioning the alleged establishment of Shusha in the 18th century does not override the evidence that an earlier town and fort existed long before the upgrade of Shusha into an urban settlement in the 18th century. WP:Weight, WP:FRINGE do not support the apportion of sources into "majority" and "minority," and WP:BALANCE and WP:OR invalidate this apportioning. If all mentioned sources supporting the notion of an earlier creation of the city are counted, the view about the 18th century establishment can be well a minority view, if one follows the logic of the Grandmaster/Brandmesiter duo. I suggest to return to the previous version where a composite timeline is put in place, and discrepancies are explained on the side. Hablabar (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Brandmeister Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with the above that the issue at stake is how to present the conflicting pre-1750s version in the article and whether that version should be treated in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Personally I found it difficult to find any mention of Shusha before the 1750s in reliable sources, including all encyclopedias which tackle this issue. According to some sources from the opposing camp's version, there was already a fortress in Shusha before 1750s and it was ceded to Panah Ali Khan, but it contradicts the 1750s version, which says that the town's only fortress was built by Panah Ali Khan. This latter version is confirmed particularly by the inscription on the wall of the town's mosque and some primary sources, quoted in the article. Brandmeistertalk 12:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roses&guns Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zimmarod Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think Proudbolsahye's suggestion expressed here [1] is reasonable and we can modify the text per his suggestion. At the same time, Grandmaster's refusal to cooperate and his attitude "My way or no way" should be be taken note of by administrators. Zimmarod (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alborz Fallah As my native language is Persian and Persian sources are of major importance in chronography of that region , I can say all Persian sources support 1752 foundation . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Talk:Shusha discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 24 hour closing notice: In light of the fact that several significant participants in this dispute have chosen not to participate here (as is their right), there's not much we can do. This will be closed as futile unless those editors choose to give opening statements before 17:00 UTC on November 27, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) I left additional notes today for some people who have been active at Shusha and hope there may be a response. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks T-man and Ed for your efforts but it seems participation is lacking and so I am closing this case. Please let me know if have any questions or objections. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I would like to ask to keep this case open, so that we could get more involvement from the wiki community. I think discussing and trying to find a solution is better than edit warring, and leaving this issue unresolved could result in resumption of edit warring. It would also be helpful if editors checking this page could provide their opinions so that the issue could be resolved in accordance with the wiki rules. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, discussing is always better than edit warring. User:TransporterMan? Is there enough participation now to move ahead? I'll leave it open and let you do the close if you feel it is stale. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I think so and I've removed the closing notice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Great, glad things are moving forward :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) PS I've forwarded the bot archive date to Dec 15th. Please adjust as needed. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice-- Attn: User:TransporterMan and others. I note that discussion is ongoing at the article talk page and that there has been no discussion here by involved parties for more than a week. User:Grandmaster has said he would like more community opinion. An RfC would be best for this as moderators here at DRN attempt to be neutral and generally do not offer opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trail of Tears Classic

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by TheWABACmachine on 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Trail of Tears Classic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TheWABACmachine (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Page describes a college sports rivalry that is not accurate. While the two teams play each other, they do not label this rivalry, nor do they use the ethnically insensitive term. As the marketing and communications director of Arkansas State, I can speak directly to this. The article has been cited by on-line media as proof of a ethic insensitivity by A-State toward the Native American community. If individuals use the term, it is not sanctioned by A-State, and we would appreciate deleting the article as it is inaccurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Made the edit to remove, it was reinstated How do you think we can help? First time for me on this, so I hope I am following the correct procedures. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Trail of Tears Classic discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpeedFan

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by D0s4d1 on 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute SpeedFan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved D0s4d1 (talk · contribs) 71.196.246.113 (talk · contribs) 109.154.160.28 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, and thank you for your time with this. Someone seems to be running the Speed Fan page, but they have no account on Wiki and are issuing proclamations from unregistered IP addresses. I think it might be the programmer. Since Wiki seeks to include all opinions, I feel both their and my point of view should be represented. I welcome any suggestions of neutral wording. The section in question: Risks SpeedFan crashes some systems when it is launched, possibly causing registry corruption or loss of recent changes to the registry. This can cause recently-installed programs to disappear from Add/Remove Programs, programs to no longer function correctly, or loss of operating-system stability. What I wrote was factual. That software and any like it hook so deep into the operating system that there is some risk of trashing your OS. On a Windows PC, this is not a surprise, and many programs (antivirus, device drivers, etc) have the same risk. That risk should be stated so the casual computer user understands the risks before proceeding. I was prepared to deal with the fallout of a system crash, but many people I know are not. Can you help form neutral language and, if necessary, lock the page from drive-by editing or SpeedFan's organized in-house press? Thank you again for your time. D0s4d1 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to start a discussion on the talk page, and restored the text. After my text was deleted again, I tried to start a discussion again with this anonymous troll. How do you think we can help? Suggest neutral language, mediate, or lock the page except to people with usernames, if necessary. Summary of dispute by 71.196.246.113 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 109.154.160.28 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. SpeedFan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Millet (Ottoman Empire)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jingiby on 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Millet (Ottoman Empire) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jingiby (talk · contribs) 46.193.1.177 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A statement of Ethnic Macedonians being one of the Orthodox different ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, has been recently added by an IP. However. during the early 20th century, i.e. at the eve of the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkans, the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. This was also the time of the first expressions of Macedonian nationalism only by a handsome of intellectuals outside the region of Macedonia. Meanwhile in the 19th century the classic Ottoman millet system began to degrade then with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic identity. Most of Macedonian Slavs then joined the new Bulgarian Millet, and some joined the Greek or the Serbian millets. Generally, till the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century there were recognized 17 separate millets, i.e. nations. Macedonian Millet or separate ethnic community was never recognized or claimed. Macedonist ideas increased only in 1930s and were supported by the Comintern. During the Second World War these ideas were further developed by the Yugoslav Communist Partisans, but some researchers doubt that even at that time the Macedonian Slavs considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. In this way the crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944. The IP provided a single primary source by Georgi Pulevski and added the Ethnic Macedonians as a separate entity in the article. However, Pulevski viewed the Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. Once he was calling himself a "Serbian patriot", another time a "Bulgarian". His numerous identifications actually reveals the absence of a clear ethnic sense in a part of the local Slavic population in Macedonia then and that is confirmed by a secondary sources. The IP rejected all provided academic sources and didn't discuss on article's talk page, making blind reverts, insisting of the presence of any imaginery Ethnic Macedonian community during Ottoman times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss the issue on IP's talk page and also proposed the article for semi-protection. How do you think we can help? On the base of provided lots academic sources. Summary of dispute by 46.193.1.177 (talk · contribs) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As a note, this IP editor has been blocked for a period of 48 hours due to edit warring. Once he makes an opening statement, discussion can be opened unless the DRN request is closed for another reason. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 18:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Millet (Ottoman Empire) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

novocure

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 1zeroate on 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Novocure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 1zeroate (talk · contribs) zad68 (talk · contribs) alexbrn (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview zad68,alexbrn these two are following me around or we are bumping heads alot. They are insisting on removing most anything I put forth. Some of the citations they insist upon require credit cards to be read. They have a severe dislike/bias against novocure and modalities like it I can appreciate not giving undue weight to that which is unproven. However , Novocure is proven. I made a few edits on zad68 and then this novocure page I made was put up for articles of deletion. I feel this was done in retaliation. Mastcell was quick to support him after blanking my talk pages on the Royal Rife page speaking about novocure. This is a clicque. A club. A gang of individuals working their best to control the medical pages from a Cynical skeptic point of view. And thats fine till their bias targets individuals. I am sick and tired of being at the short end of the barrel. Can I get some assistence in resolving our disputes? Things like references that are free instead of ME having to buy access. Not having the majority of my edits targeted for rollback by these people on this page and other pages. The assumption that everything I do is in bad faith wears me down. And they recurit. Their is a salm somthing. He was on another delete page supporting a delete and asking for a merge. I opposed the merge because of the shady timing. Now he is on the novocure page supporting alexbrn and zad68 and asking for delete. And this is with that clique. Clique group editing is not gonna advance humanity for the best. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking, comprimise. I am down for comprimise. I asked for a RfC with mast cell after blanking. but I have years of experience with Mastcell and his babysitting of the defunt royal rife smear page. That page is not a BIO. Biographys are about people. That Rife page is about his machine and how dangerous machines attributed to him are. It is that bias mentality that is following me and insisting that my edits be edited out. How do you think we can help? I have no clue. I am at my witts end. I try to come back on occasion... I was watching the Anthony Holland (composer) page from back in the day when He was the only Anthony Holland here. As soon as i added that bit about his work with frequency devices it did not take long to be put up for deletion by the clique. It would be nice if those of the clique would raise the bar, talk more before editing, assume good faith, double check ref links. Summary of dispute by zad68 The editor who started this DR, 1zeroate, has just been indef-blocked. It's unlikely anything further will happen with this DR. Zad68 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by alexbrn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MastCell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. novocure discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deobandi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 98.100.23.77 on 20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Deobandi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved null (talk · contribs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Statements backed by references to the links of extremism and terrorism to Deobandi movements have been systematically removed over the course of more than a year. Mention of such practices (not in line with neutrality and factual accuracy) began over a year ago in the talk section but received no comment. Additions today to references to this topic were summarily removed and labelled "silly" today. Given the global importance of such links in providing an objective view of Deobandi aspects, such references must be allowed in. As an alternative, the entire page should be deleted to prevent dissemination of a distorted view of this movement. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Undid the deletion, added comment in talk page. How do you think we can help? In short, allow references to links between Deobandi and terrorism and extremism, or delete the entire page. Given the dismissive and inaccurate description by GorgeCustersSabre accompanying his/her deletion of referenced statements, I see no reasonable possibility for acceptance of the references on the aspect of Deobandi extremism and terrorism connections without resolution by others. The chilling effect of GorgeCustersSabre's approach on this topic will be significant if tolerated. Summary of dispute by null Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Deobandi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Macedonians (ethnic group)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Jingiby on 06:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jingiby (talk · contribs) Slovenski Volk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the section describing the Macedonian identity is a statement during the Middle Ages, there was no distinct Macedonian identity, however the designation Macedonian referred to any person who lived in Macedonia. I tried to clarify with properly soursed sentence that Medieval, i.e. Byzantine Macedonia was an area outside the borders of the region known in antiquity and modern times with this name and it even disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in 14th century, restored only in the 19th century as geographical term. However another user fiercely prevents those objective circumstances to be described in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on a talk page of an admin: Future Perfect at Sunrise. How do you think we can help? On the base of a common sense, compromise and provided reliable academic sources. Summary of dispute by Slovenski Volk Jingiby is a well-meaning editor, and i consider him a (cyber) friend. However, on this occasion he appears to be rather confused. There difference between my version of the discussion of "Identities" and his later additions are visible here [2] Several errors are evident is in his additions (1) he claims "The term was used rarely in a geographical or administrative aspect" Quoting J V A Fine here [3] which says nothing of the sort. So he has misrepresented the source. (2) He then claims "This designation began circulating on the Balkans in Western-influenced cultural contexts since the 16th century again, however the idea of Macedonian identity arose outside the region during the 17th century, involving the local Slavic population hardly in the second half of the 19th century" Aside from the poor English, it is out of context. The paragraph he has added it in is dealing with the medieval time-frame. He is jumping to a discussion on the modern period, surrounding issues of modern Romantic Nationalism etc which are already discussed subsequently in greater detail in an additional 3 chapters (!) His addition is thus redundant, and one is forced to conclude that it serves no purpose apart from ramming down his personal POV. (3) He appears to be confused by the notion of Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (theme). The Macedonian region had been established since Phillip and Alexander annexed Pelanognia and Paeonia to Macedonia propper, and this remained so through Roman times and into Late Antiquity and the early medieval period; when Slavic tribes settled there. Whilst its expanse varied and was subject to change, a vague notion of "Macedonia" as a region always remained. Scholars of antiquity and Middle Ages have no confusion where Macedonia lies [4][5] - as they clearly discuss Macedonia in a wider, regional perspective, and when talking about the specific theme of Macedonia, they clearly distinguish. Eg Curta talks of "another Byzantine raid into Macedonia in 991. .. with a shift in centre of Power.. to Prespa" (pg 242). whilst the Companion the "bishop of Stobi, the capital City of Macedonia Secunda" (pg 559). When referring to the theme they illustrate clearly eg "Bulgarian troops raided the theme of Macedonia"(Curta pg 227). There is no "rarity", and the only confusion is with Jingiby. As an aside, and an explanation, Byzantine naming conventions were haphazard, tempered as they were on the chronolgy and extent of what land they actually controlled/ recovered. They could not call historic Macedonia the theme of Macedonia becuase they had simply not conquered it ! As a cross -example, the theme of Serbia was not actually in Serbia, but in what is now Montegenro. Serbia itself actually lay in the 'theme of Sirmium'. The theme of Bulgaria lay far to the east of original Bulgaria, and where Bulgaria is today. The Byzantine theme of Hellas did not correspond to ancient Greece, nor modern Greece , etc, etc (4) In any case, Jingiby can confabulate ad nauseum about where he thinks Macedonia should lie, however, the reference is clear. "Most references to Macedonians in Byzantine texts are in (both) a geographical or administrative and not an ethnic sense".[6]. So it was used both as a general geographic identifier as well as the specific administrative theme. QED Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) List of sources for discussion Since the topic seems to be complicated for the volunteers and no comments were posted, I would like to present a lot of specialized sources and corresponding links on their attention, aiming to to help them. I will avoid any personal comments on the topic. In the second century CE Claudius Ptolemy imagined Macedonia to be more or less where it is considered to be today, especially if one defines Macedonia as exclusivelly the contemporary Greek region. In other words, the northern regions around Skopje were not identified as Macedonian lands. However for reasons that are still unclear, over the next eleven centuries Macedonia's location “shifted” significantly—both in Byzantine and in Western European sources. Entangled Histories of the Balkans: Volume One, Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, BRILL, 2013, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 278-279. The migrations during the early Byzantine centuries also changed the meaning of the geographical term Macedonia, which seems to have moved to the east together with some of the non-Slavic population of the old Roman province. In the early 9th century an administrative unit (theme) of Makedonikon was established in what is now Thrace (split among Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey) with Adrianopleas its capital. It was the birthplace of Emperor Basil I (867–886), the founder of the so-called Macedonian dinasty in Byzantinum. Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. Iii. By the beginning of the 9th century the theme of Macedonia, with its capital at Adrianople consisted not of Macedonian but of Thracian territories. During the Byzantine period the Macedonia proper corresponded to the themes of Thessalonica and Strymon. The Ottoman administration ignored the name of Macedonia. It was only revived during the Renaisance, when western schoolars rediscovered the ancient Greek geographical terminology. Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD, Robin J. Fox, Robin Lane Fox, BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206507, p. 35. In antiquity and modern times, Adrianople belonged to Thrace, but all scholars agree that in Byzantine times Adrianople was the capital of the theme of Macedonia. Byzantine Macedonia: Identity Image and History, Roger Scott, John Burke, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, Australian Catholic University, 2000, ISBN 1876503068, p. 67. By the Middle ages Macedonia's location had been forgotten and designated in areas mostly outside the ancient Macedonian kingdom, vanishing completely after the Ottoman conquest.Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1. The reason for specifying this period (late Ottoman rule) is that during the Middle Ages the geographical definition 'Macedonia' is somewhat vague; and with all but a few of the Byzantine writers the term comes to include the larger portion of Northern Thrace or what is today South Bulgaria, and often present day Thrace as well. History of Macedonia 1354-1833, Α. Ε. Vacalopoulos. Translated by Peter Megann, Institute for Balkan studies, Thessalonika, 1973, p. 3. Over a certain period they (Byzantine authors) called the inhabitants of the Adrianople area " Macedonians" because at that time the Adrianople area was included in the theme (administrative region) of Macedonia. The troops of this theme were also often called Macedonian troops. Documents and materials on the history of the Bulgarian people, Dimitar Kyosev et al. Publ. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1969, Sofia, p. 6. When the barbarian invasions started in the fourth through seventh centuries AD in the Balkans, the Macedones and the other remnants of the Hellenes who lived in Macedonia were pushed to eastern Thrace, the area between Adrianople (presently the Turkish city of Edirne) and Constantinople. This area would be called theme of Macedonia by the Byzantines... whereas the modern territory of R. of Macedonia was included in the theme of Bulgaria after the destrution of Samuels Bulgarian Empire in 1018. Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, 1900-1996, Chris Kostov, Peter Lang, 2010, ISBN 3034301960, p. 48. The ancient name 'Macedonia' disappeared during the period of Ottoman rule and was only restored in the nineteenth century originally as geographical term. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, John Breuilly, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 0199209197, p. 192. Under Turkish rule Macedonia vanished completely from administrative terminology and survived only as a in the Greek oral traditions. Plundered Loyalties: World War II and the Civil War in Greek West Macedonia, Giannēs Koliopoulos, New York University Press, 1999, ISBN 0814747302, p. 1. The region was not called "Macedonia" by the Ottomans, and the name "Macedonia" gained currency together with the ascendance of rival nationalism. Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question, Victor Roudometof, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976483, p. 89. The first of these two groups was the Bulgaro-Macedonians, whose Slavic component the Bulgarian historian Zlatarski derives from the Antes. They were conquered in the late seventh century by the Turkic Bulgars. The Slavs eventually assimilated them, but the Bulgars’ name survived. It denoted this Slavic group from the 9th century through the rest of medieval into modern times... Thus the reader should ignore references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle ages which appear in some modern works...Nevertheless, the absence of a national consciousness in the past is no grounds to reject the Macedonians as a nationality today. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36-37. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Macedonians (ethnic group) discussion Since no other volunteer has stepped forward, I will open this case myself. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Dear User:Jingiby and User: Slovenski Volk, Thank you for your willingness to join a moderated discussion in an attempt to find compromise and agreement on an issue you have been struggling with on the article talk page. Please remember that the purpose of this forum is to discuss content only. Therefore please refrain from making any comments about each other and what one or the other has done in the past. I'd like to approach this issue with a fresh start and stay focused only on the content issues. My sense from reading your statements above is that the core of the dispute lies in the use of the word Macedonia in the context of the article Macedonians (ethnic group). Part of the dispute is its usage in the Identities section as indicated by Slovenski's objection to this edit made by Jingiby. Rather than speak general terms, which tends to go round and round, I'd like to suggest that edit as a starting point for discussion. Is that OK with both of you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you dear Keithbob. However, meanwhile we have found some kind of compromise on the article itself, with my friend Slovenski Volk. Thank you again. Jingiby (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you Keithbob and Jingiby. Since it appears Jingiby and I are at odds with how exactly to interpret the cited relevant source (althugh in my humble opinion, the interpretation is clear and apparent); I ve decided to use the very quote of the scholar and leave it at that. Surely, this might avoid the need to continue the ad nauseum discussion on the talk page there. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) However, I used also another sources making minor clarifiyng tweak in the sentence. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Nice work folks. Glad you were able to find an acceptable compromise. I will close the case now. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Simpsons

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Blurred Lines on 16:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Blurred Lines (talk · contribs) AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs) Grapesoda22 (talk · contribs) WikiAnthony (talk · contribs) List of discussions during the dispute: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 November 24#The Simpsons Adult Genre Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this reliable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160#Is this link reliable? Dispute overview There has been multiple discussions, about the genre, and the links that has been inserted originally by AmericanDad86, before that was WikiAnthony, and Grapesoda22, who added the genres without sources, in which cases there has been a problem since then. DRN Coordinator's note: Dear Blurred Lines, you have cited three prior discussion above but only the middle link goes to a specific thread rather than an entire page. Can you fix the links so they are thread specific? or if that is not technically possible for some reason, then please give the names of the headers for each thread. Evidence of extensive prior discussion is a prerequisite for a DRN filing so this is important. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)  Done Blurred Lines 18:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Hi User:Blurred Lines, Thanks for your efforts. What I need to see are both the links to the discussion pages and the titles of each discussion section so I can look at the discussions. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC) @Keithbob: I already have the links of the previous discussions above. Blurred Lines 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Oh, you made a special section above. So sorry I didn't see that. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, but it's not working out for me, or anyone else. The lastest RFC discussion I had on the article's (The Simpsons) talk page, only one user responded to it, as of that user is (DarthBotto), who thinks that the links that AmericanDad86 provides have good context because he claims that they are scholarly links. Later, AmericanDad86 (who was involved in the dispute) made a survey stating that it supported DB's comment, in which I disagreed everything. How do you think we can help? I don't know, this is my second request since a few weeks ago, and was never answered (in which was speedy closed by a uninvolved user). Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by WikiAnthony Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Notes from DRN coordinator The filing party has a Semi-Retired banner on their talk and user pages. I've inquired as to whether they will have enough time to fully participate here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) The filing party seems very responsive and says they will have to time to fully participate. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) DRN volunteer coordinator 24 hr closing notice--Unless we see some participation by the named parties in the next 24 hrs I'm going to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) The Simpsons discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nichiren Shōshū

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Daileyn on 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Daileyn (talk · contribs) Catflap08 (talk · contribs) Kiruning (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The image posted on Nichiren Shoshu page is not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon. The two editors who responded to me agreed this is true. It was originally posted right next to the section on DaiGohonzon. It is misleading and bad editing and visually deceptive. I uploaded an image of the temple where the DaiGohonzon resides which is a better instructional option. Catflap08 continues to delete the temple image and insert the incorrect gohonzon image with the caption "similar but not identical." Posting this incorrect image (see my "talk" statements about Turkish vs Italian lira analogy) is a false representation and harms the integrity of Wikipedia. It's just bad editing. It seems that there a political agenda at play here with Catflap08. Thank you for any assistance you can provide to resolve this issue. Nancy Dailey Have you tried to resolve this previously? I originally emailed EN-Copyvio, Robert Laculus, who removed the image but it was inserted again by several different people. How do you think we can help? I would hope that you can help to uphold the standards of practice for this article and not let it disintegrate into some political conversation. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and a donor. This experience has already shaken my confidence in it as a truth telling entity. I hope you will help get to the truth. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Catflap08 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kiruning Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nichiren Shōshū discussion Administrative notices: Note that Catflap08 had started an ANI thread about 20 minutes before this DRN was submitted. Since nobody's responded to it, however, DRN is probably the better bet. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks Mendaliv, I'll be holding up this discussion here until the ANI thread cited above is closed by an Admin. Meanwhile, named parties can make their opening statements.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.