Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes
 | Deferring to ArbCom for resolution. Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I have some concern regarding NPOV and the due weight of several references. Following a previous case I've filed [1] which brought several outside editors to the article, the user in question, Keahapana, had attempted on several occasions to restore some disputed material, which I feel violates WP:OWN [2], [3], [4]. The material in question has been challenged by several other editors, [5], but nevertheless was allowed to remain for the next months. I've made several changes on May 15 per the previous discussion [6], which was reverted by Keahapana [7] 5 days later. There's some reverts forth and back since. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk page discussion at [8], which has been inconclusive due to the lack of outside editors. Due to my past history with the article and editor in question, I do not believe that I can engage in a amicable discussion without third party mediation.
Hopefully solve the disputes over reverted material and find a mutually satisfying conclusion. PCPP (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Comment by HomunculusTwo things:
Comment by KeahapanaI welcome DRN help resolving this dispute and look forward to hearing independent comments. Rather than again explain my admittedly subjective opinions, I suggest that participants draw their own conclusions from the Talk and History pages. To summarize, some editors and I have repeatedly asked that large-scale deletions be discussed in advance, but other editors choose not to seek consensus. Our request, as quoted in current fn. 52 above is, "if there are specific problems with content, please discuss before deleting again". Taking one of today's diffs (made under the rubric "Paraphrased CSM quote per NPOV") as an example, compare
Based on Wikipedia standards and conventions, which content version is preferable? Keahapana (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Comment by PCPPHi, I've read the discussion, and per the terms, I will not edit the main page of the article while the discussion is going on, and will not touch or mention the paragraphs regarding FLG. Overall, I feel that this article is overlong with quotes, and some can be better served with summarized statements. I also feel a need to distinguish between criticisms of CI and criticisms of individuals working at CI. My main disputes are with several of Keahapana's recent additions, which I view as failing to satisfy NPOV and due weight. Here are some of the specific changes I disagree with: Statements by Pierrebourg et al alleging that some CI employees have relations with United Front Work Dept and Huawei. The authors also allege that United Front and Huawei employees were engaging in possible propaganda and spying efforts. In my opinion, this is given undue weight, since it engage a "guilt-by-association" fallacy, sounds like a conspiracy theory, and itself is not really a criticism of CI itself.
A quote from the German publication "Der Spiegel", which claims that CI possibly promotes "China's cultural superiority". I feel that this statement falls on undue weight, as it comes from an article about China's foreign relations, and only mentioned CI in one sentence. Comparisons with Mussolini's Italian Institutes. I feel that this violates NPOV and engages in further association fallacy.
A statement from Branner speculating on the long term consequences of CI finances. I feel that this statement adds little to the article, which is in danger of being too long with its quotations.
A tabloid headline referring to China as "a cruel, tyrannical, and repressive foreign government". I feel that this violates NPOV, tells nothing to the reader, and feel that it's better to use the author's concluding statements about how Chinese should be taught "in terms of freedom and democracy"
A paragraph detailing that the Dickinson State University not wanting a CI, noting that it's not where they want to focus right now. I feels that this is not really a criticism at all, since such institutions can be rejected for administration reasons at anytime. Also, the university mentioned is a comparatively minor educational institution which has been accused of being a diploma mill.
A paragraph detailing a Senate hearing regarding Chinese diplomatic efforts in the US, which includes quotes of political rhetorics from Representative Dana Rohrabacher as well as statement from Steven W. Mosher. I feel that quoting Rohrabacher adds little to the article, and it's better to simply summarize his statements. As for Steven Mosher, it was claimed that he was expelled by Stanford due to Chinese pressure, while failing to mention the event happened in 1981 and has nothing to do with CI at all.
A paragraph regarding a local dispute over an elementary school's Confucius Classroom, sourced largely from blogs. I feel that this does not meet notability and due weight requirements.
The paragraph states that CI is administered by Hanban, and its chair used to work with United Front. This already says "association fallacy", and the Mosher quote regarding United Front is inappropriately added to synthesis further spying allegations.
Here is a paragraph about London School of Economics accepting donations from China, and associates it with the controversial Gaddafi donations. Again, I feel that this has little to do with CI, and more to do with LSE.
Long paragraph regarding Visa requirements of CI employees. I feel that this is given undue weight.
DiscussionClerk Comment: I am a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to take a look at the dispute. I'll take a look at the article in question and try to give some insight. I'd like to give a couple of reminders, first, though:
I haven't had a chance to review both sides of the issue or look at the article in-depth, but I will try to comment when I am a little more familiar with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone. I think I will leave most of this in the capable hands of Sleddog116, but I thought I would provide some background as I closed the last DRN thread about this article. Here is a list of links:
It is my understanding that editing the parts of the article might not be a technical violation of PCPP's falun gong topic ban, but that the issue is not black and white, and if an administrator thinks that he has been testing the boundaries of the ban then he could be blocked anyway. I would suggest that he only edit the talk page, just to be on the safe side, and ask for third-party assistance (as he has done here) rather than editing the page directly. Reading the article, I think that it shows symptoms of systemic bias, and could do with more commentary from the Confucius Institute and its supporters to balance out the criticisms raised. For example, the "espionage" section reports many allegations that the Confucius Institute or its employees have engaged in espionage, with not a single rebuttal from the CI itself. Whatever the truth of the matter may be, I find it hard to believe that if serious allegations of espionage were made, the CI did not even attempt to rebut them. We must also remember to be culturally sensitive about the subject matter here. People generally see reality through the prism of their native culture, and it is all too easy to fall into the trap of thinking our own culture is "normal" or "right", and that other cultures are "strange" or "wrong". For example, from a Western viewpoint, the CI asking that no-one talk about Tibet might be seen as "stifling freedom" or "toeing the Communist Party line"; from a Chinese viewpoint, however, it might just be seen as the CI being respectful to their superiors back home, and a necessary step to avoid embarrassing them. In my opinion, we need to make sure we present a nuanced picture, and give both sides of the story. This might mean finding Chinese-language sources if we cannot find English sources that would do the job. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Also, as a way to kick of the discussion, I agree with Homunculus that it would be good if PCPP could present a point-by-point list of the things he is concerned about. That will help us keep this discussion focused and productive. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Comment by Sleddog116: Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. I can't really argue with anything you just said. I've taken a look at the argument, and I've reviewed the most recent edit history of the article. As Homunculus and Strad said, I think PCPP needs to give a brief point-by-point list of concerns. I'm not going to comment on the IBAN issue, but I think I might have an administrator take a look at this and see if it's going to be a concern. Without taking the IBAN into the account, I see basically two main grievances from the disputants:
Is that an accurate synopsis of the essence of the argument, or have I missed something important? As far as I can tell, this is a simple, clear-cut case of WP:REDFLAG and Neutrality of Sources. Remember: All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say. For instance, this removal was completely justified because, as far as I can tell, the material that PCPP removed was not in the given source, so it would not be WP:NPOV to present it as such without attributing it to a reliable source. On the other hand, removing every negative source is also not justified. This is not an issue that can be settled arbitrarily. Neutral point of view does not mean "fill the article with non-neutral statements but make sure both sides are equal"; neutrality is presenting the information in a neutral way and attributing it to sources. Some will be positive, some will be negative. The prominence of each viewpoint will determine how much "weight" each one gives. We can't simply look at the article and "balance the positive and the negative" if that's going to give a viewpoint undue weight. For instance, there is a significant number of people who deny that the Holocaust ever occurred, but because this viewpoint (though extensively published) represents an extremely small minority, Holocaust denial is not even mentioned in the Holocaust article except in the "See Also" section. Doing otherwise would give Holocaust denial undue weight. If the prevailing reliably-published view towards the subject is negative, then that negativity will be reflected in the article. Period. That is simply how Wikipedia works - we never get anything first, and we don't make inferences about our subject matter; we simply pass on, summarize, and/or simplify what can already be found in other sources. On the other hand, since this is the English Wikipedia, the majority of our reliable sources will invariably demonstrate a Western bias. Therefore, I think we need other sources, as Mr. Stradivarius said above. The Monitor is a good source, but we do need to see if we can find some other sources. PCPP, I think, again, that you should also be a little more specific with the exact problems you have with the article as it is. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Update: I have spoken with an administrator, The Blade of the Northern Lights, and he clarified the terms of the ban(s) on PCPP: "OK, the Confucius Institution in and of itself is completely fine, it's only the parts of it relating to their discrimination against the Falun Gong and any responses to said discrimination that fall under PCPP's ban (he's indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, broadly construed). If that's happened, that'd be a clear violation of his topic ban; if not, I don't think there's an issue." Now, I'm not entirely sure of exactly how to interpret "broadly construed," but based on Blade's response, I don't think any ban violation has occurred yet. But since the topic is "broadly construed," it could easily become a problem if it escalates. PCPP, I suggest you keep this in mind. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Comment by Keahapana Thanks Sleddog116 and Mr. Stradivarius. I'm not familiar with the dispute resolution process, and appreciate your thoughts. Yes, your synopsis is accurate, and available trustworthy sources on CI controversies are problematic. I double-checked that removal, and the linked Starr article says, "The issue was taken up in the Swedish Parliament where Göran Lindblad compared the CIs to Mussolini's Italian institutes of the 1930s and expressed extreme concern about the links between the Nordic Institute and Stockholm University." Although several reliable sources mention this historical parallel, "Mussolini comparisons" have been removed and restored without consensus. Keahapana (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section BreakFor now, let's just talk about it like we'd do it on an article talk page. Thank you, PCPP, for providing us with a list of specific concerns. I think the best bet at this point would be to take each one of PCPP's concerns listed above (starting at the top) and discuss the problems with and/or solutions for each one. Remember, please address edits, not editor conduct. We've already addressed PCPP's TBAN, and since the admin I spoke to does not think a violation has occurred, we'll leave it at that. From here on, try to keep the discussion focused on the problem with edits. I apologize for not responding sooner, but I've been somewhat busy over the last few days. What I would like to see all of you doing here is taking each of PCPP's concerns and addressing them one by one. I'm mostly going to just let you discuss the problems, but I'll be here to keep the discussion focused and provide input if anyone requests it. Since there are a lot of concerns, it could be a lengthy discussion, so let's all try to keep cool heads and remember that Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Wandering Son
| Appears to be resolved, no discussion in three days Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is basically a dispute on what pronouns should be used for certain characters in a fictional series where two of the main characters have expressed interest in being the opposite sex. In this case, the first protagonist Shuichi Nitori is a biological boy who wants to be a girl, and the second protagonist Yoshino Takatsuki is a biological girl who wants to be a boy. Users involved
It is my belief that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
This is the second time the issue was taken up on the talk page, the first being almost a year ago. The current discussion can be seen at Talk:Wandering Son#Pronouns again. There were also various edit history comments posted, which lead no where. Assuming 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are the same person, they seem to prefer not discussing much of anything, as 137.52.209.97 only edited the talk page once, and this was the only diff of someone arguing to use female pronouns for Shuichi and male for Yoshino (or in other words, the opposite of their biological "assigned" sexes). The other editors on the talk page have been in favor of using their biological sexes to determine which pronouns to use, and two editors have expressed confusion on the recent changes that 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 have done to the article: [25], [26].
An outside opinion would be helpful, but mainly I'm trying to resolve the dispute with the various guidelines and policies I and others have outlined on the talk page. The dispute mainly comes down to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV which I believe 137.52.209.97 and 50.128.198.195 are going against in this case. Wandering Son discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hello everyone, I'm a clerk here at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I thought I would give my opinion on this dispute. My apologies to the IP, but the guidance at MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on how we treat these kinds of issues. In the absence of any self-identification, which is impossible given that we are talking about fictional characters, we must use the pronouns that are used in the sources on the subject. If in this case, as has been indicated on the talk page, both the work itself and the secondary sources use the characters' biological gender pronouns, then this is what Wikipedia must do too. So we should make sure we refer to Shuichi as a "he" and Yoshino as a "she" throughout the article. This is not meant to undermine the trans-gender themes in the article at all, and we should make sure we cover these aspects of the work with diplomacy and tact. Pronouns are not an area that we can compromise on, however. I think we should clean up the rest of the article to use the biological gender pronouns, and if there is further edit warring we can report it at WP:AN3 or WP:RFPP as appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Scenera Research
| Filer needs to try to resolve the issue through talk page discussion first. Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There is a dispute about what citations fall within Wikipedia's rules. The dispute involves disagreements about whether various citations are verifiable, whether some content is opinion, and whether some content is original research? For example, is a citation to a listing of patent applications on the US patent offices website allowed? Is it appropriate to categorize patents based on the listing where no categorization information is present? Is a reference to an individual a suitable citation? These issues I believe can be easily resolved. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Two attempts to discuss the issue have been made, but no response has been received.
Simply tell the users what the rules are with respect to the issues described above. It's apparent rules are either not known or are not being followed. Zepheydog (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Scenera Research discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
My understanding was delete requests were not to be removed until the discussion surrounding deletion had been completed. Zepheydog has improperly removed the tag. This appears to be part of a dispute outside of wikipedia that is being fought on a wikipedia page. The reason for deletion was related to whether the entity was noteworthy and based on the apparent conflicts of interest with the parties involved. A company that isn't noteworthy shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Further, wikipedia shouldn't be used to further disputes outside of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadenuff (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Filer, please state where you have discussed the issue.Curb Chain (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see Callitlikeicit's talk page and Merrygoround92's talk page (links above). I did not participate in either of those attempts. I merely observed that there had been no response to either. To be honest, I opened this thread because I thought marking the article for deletion was a drastic step to take to resolve what seem like issues that are easily resolved. I hoped that the users involved including myself would receive some advice. Given that the article is now in the deletion process, I'm not sure this separate thread is needed. Some advice on this aspect would also be appreciated. If there are other questions I didn't answer completely or properly, please let me know.--Zepheydog (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Craig Thomson affair
| Qwyrxian is right - the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair will take priority over dispute resolution at this noticeboard. However, if any related disputes flare up after the deletion discussion is closed, feel free to post another thread here. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
In this edit a new IP editor added a statement about the Health Services Union refusing to investigate the finances of a Victorian branch of the union. However, the source provided to support the statement says that it was actually the Victorian branch requesting that the national finances be investigated. The article is therefore incorrect, and it should be reworded to swap the roles of branch and head office. I've been trying to either remove the incorrect statement, or correct it, but have had no luck in discussion. Unfortunately the new editor's efforts to defend his insertion without regard to the normal discussion procedures of indentation have jumbled things around a bit, but it settles down towards the end of the section. Here's the current statement:The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009. Here's the quote from the source: HSU Victoria No. 4 branch represents medical scientists, hospital pharmacists and psychologists. The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary. However in a response that stunned Dr Kelly's branch, Fair Work official Terry Nassios said that as the national union did not itself have members, it was only treated as a union branch for the purposes of financial reporting. At the least, the statement in the article should read: The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the national union following a petition by members of HSU No.4 Branch in July 2009. (My bolding, to highlight the error.) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on talk page failed to resolve the wording, though we made some progress. As the article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics, I made a request there.
I'd like the some fresh eyes on the wording to get the article statement to agree with the source which supposedly supports it. Pete (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Craig Thomson affair discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
I don't want to be forced to keep responding
| See closing comments Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Unable to get User: Joseph A. Spadaro to discontinue dispute. He continues to escalate the conflict despite my stated wish to bow out of the discussion. Users involved
please refer to the edit history and edit summaries of Deaths in 2012 and Talk:Deaths in 2012 as well as the edit history of the talk page of User:Joseph A. Spadaro
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Attempted to leave discussion, then asked more experienced editors for advice.
Step in and prevent Spadaro's history from repeating itself. 67.71.2.203 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I don't want to be forced to keep responding discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Just confirming that I filed this report and forgot to log in, so an IP address is listed instead. Guyovski (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Guayaquil
| Filer needs to go to Talk:Guayaquil and make a good-faith effort to resolve the issue through discussion first. Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Me and user 62.194.193.140 (talk · contribs) have a dispute about Guayaquil. The population fo the city according to the last Ecuadorian census does note exceed 2.650.000 and the other user suggests more than 3.8 million residents. This is the second time my governmenet approved census data is changed. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to talk with 62.194.193.140 about this issue about the population of Guayaquil, but I was not able to contact the other editor.
Please do help me on how to include the correct information about the population of this city. Jach79 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Guayaquil discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
| 3 days with no discussion Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This article states at the top of the page "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism." When you edit it, there is a yellow message above the edit window that says "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism." We have a new editor, SirShawn, who doesn't appear willing to acknowledge this and is not only adding material that is not about the history of the debate, but is arguing the debate in a pov way. I and another editor have tried to discuss this on the talk page but have gotten nowhere. Three editors have reverted him, Wdford then replacing some material of his that is relevant to the article. SirShawn's latest comments have included insults and the statement "Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions!" Users involved
The account SirShawn started editing on June 11th, and except for adding something to Land of Punt has only edited this article.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on talk page.
Explain to SirShawn the importance of gaining consensus and presenting material in an NPOV manner. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Ancient Egyptian race controversy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Let me first start off by saying that every single contribution that I have made to that article are as mainstream and contemporary as it gets in regards to this discussion. In the modern scholarship section of the article I have added in the official statements of the "Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt", "The Encyclopedia of Archaeology of ancient Egypt", University of Manchester, "National Geographic" (which in itself cites a dozen scholars for their statements), and the Encyclopedia Britannica. The issues that several posters are having is that every one of these modern authorities have pretty much plainly come out in the support of the "black African" theory in regards to ancient Egypt. Their rejection of these sources is clearly a reflection of their own biased. Doug has attempted to argue that the contextualized (in terms of the social concept of "race" which is relevant to the article itself) statements by every one of those authoritative sources belongs in an article which is supposed to deal with individual studies dealing with strictly with biology and culture ("Population history" article). The population history section is dealing with conflicting individual studies, and almost none of which deal with "race" in the social sense. Doug is also hypocritical on what he perceives the purpose of the article to be. He states that it is somehow only to reflect the "history" of an on-going debate, while simultaneously acknowledging a section of the article devoted to MODERN scholarship and disputing the inclusion of the most MODERN and accepted theories in regards to Egypt's origins TODAY. Interestingly enough another issue with the article is that a blatant lie in regards to a claim that modern Egyptians are "90%" genetically identical to ancient Egyptians is cited by a source that does not state it anywhere in the link. This claim prior to my contributions was posted THREE TIMES throughout the article (clearly a POV). Now why should that original research be repeated throughout the article, yet the contextualized (keyword) statements dealing with race of the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, Manchester, Britannica ect be excluded? It's makes absolutely no sense. Another issue is that they are saying that my sources are basically biased to support my POV. Well is it at all possible that one particular POV is well...where the facts lay in regards to this issue? I mean if not then why not simply cite another modern institute of the same academic integrity which opposing contextualized statements? If it's really that much of a dispute amongst modern scholars shouldn't it be easy to cite other recent views, rather than censor the one side to make it appear as though no decision has been reached? Clearly there are emotional attachments to this issue, and imo anyone who wishes to censor any of those top notch sources should not be taken seriously. One poster (WDford) attempted to say that somehow argue that including these sources were a POV because they were cited "Afrocentric" scholars. When I pretty much debunked that assertion (see the talk page), he nor anyone else responded. As evident by the talk page these users aren't trying to be logical in their decisions. They are emotionally attached to certain ideas, and are simply trying to bully their views into place with a so called "consensus" to be unreasonable. SirShawn (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's be clear that someone else has come out in favor of my edits on the talk page (pulaar) who makes this issue 2 against I suppose 3). WDford your problem with the "reliability" of my source(s) is mind boggling. First of all I have cited four prestigious encyclopedic references who all give a summarization on the issue of the "race" of the ancient Egyptians. Are honestly saying that Oxford (the actual encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), Fitzwilliam[29], Manchester[30][31], Nat Geo[32], The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt [33] and Britannica are all biased? You seem to have a problem with my sources because they all support one particular theory and discredit others. Well tell me what does that suggest about the "controversy" of the issue? To me it suggest that most contemporary scholars have their minds made on the issue. If for whatever reason you feel that this neglects the opinions of other modern authorities then why not simply CITE other MODERN authoritative institutes (which represent the majority opinion on these issues) which say different, rather than trying to censor what the major ones say? For neutrality purposes why can't we just include these conclusions from my sources and balance the article out with the "other" modern authorities who say otherwise? This should not be a problem if some of you could truly find other sources to corraborate distinct views on the issue. @ Doug, Well from my POV on attitude is irrelevant as I have another POV. I've attempted to logically discuss this issue of my contributions with you two on the talk page, but in every instance both of you state your opinions and ignore my response. From there with your lack of a response continued to revert my edits using bullying tactics with claims of a 2 to 1 consensus. That shows in unwillingness on you all's part to compromise.SirShawn (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll
| We do not issue blocks or handle user conduct issues here, since we are not admins. This is a matter for WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I first met Grizzly on a WikiProject and then invited him to become my student as part of the CVUA. After that I started to teach him some things about vandalism and how to enable twinkle. He then asked me several times to teach him how to use it but I was either away or busy at the time [34] [35], I responded saying that I am busy and will help you as soon as I get a chance. Grizzly then went and requested a new instructor thinking I did not have time for him when I actually just needed more time to reply. [36] I replied saying I am only " I am extremely busy at the moment/today, that we already started training and I also stated he would have to follow wikipedia's writing format if he wished to be trained by me. [37]. The co-ordinator responded to my message thinking I was complaining and it aroused a mini-argument that ended in a civil matter. [38] We then proceeded like nothing happened until Grizzly reopened the argument saying I stalk him (I was monitoring his edits and most of his edits came through huggle), criticize him and won't train him. [39]. I then agreed on the fact that he needed a new instructor because we obviously didn't match [40] and I was tired of cleaning up his improper edits [41] [42] [43] [44]. He then personally attacked me by calling me names, made claims saying I could be a vandal and that I was stalking him again. [45]. My response was adding the admin help template and stating that I wanted an administrator in the conversation. [46]. After that Grizzly tried removing the evidence and my comments three times (which I undid and warned him for.) (article history) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I requested admin help and I warned the user.
I am requesting that a 24 hour block be placed on the user so he cam calm down and rethink his actions or I would like an administrator to talk to him regarding his actions and how they were inappropriate. Cheers, Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll discussionComment - This dispute may be better off at another forum, such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. This forum, WP:DRN is focused on "content disputes", which are controversies over which material to include (or exclude) from WP articles. The issue here seems to be a behavioral issue centered on a page that is not a normal WP article. Probably best to bring this up at forums dedicated to behavioral problems such as WP:ANI or WP:RFCU. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment As a fellow CVUA Instructor, I agree with Riley. We are trying to help serious students learn about vandalism and get rollback, and we have already had to drop one student this month. We aren't interested in taking students who are personally attacking instructors, or who are vandals themselves. I agree with Riley that a block might possibly be in order, although this might be a borderline "cool-down block", which are forbidden. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Clerk Comment: The issues discussed here are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. For user conduct issues, please go to Wikiquette Assistance. If you are seeking blocks, discuss the issue with administrators at the administrator noticeboard. Thank you. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Resource-based economy
| Consensus appears to be that we have done all we can here. Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This dispute only concerns the section titled 'Alternative use' on Resource-based economy. A paragraph based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted.
Users involved
From looking at the talk page, OpenFuture and Earl King Jr. seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012 and 12 March 2012, respectively. From the first day of their involvement in the article to date, the only major edits these two editors provided have been deletions/ reversions of edits. The deleted/ reverted edits were based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources. Their actions always reverted the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form. Starting on 12 May 2012, I began the process of providing several additional verifiable, reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the two users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I tried to resolve this dispute many times on the talk page of Resource-based economy. Each time, the substance of my comments have been ignored (the two editors mentioned above have not responded to the substance of my arguments explaining that the paragraph above [defining the alternative use of RBE] is neutral, and that the paragraph is fully supported by the set of sources referenced at the end of the paragraph). Instead, the editors frequently voiced their personal opinions (not based on WP policies, rules, regulations or guidelines), or repeatedly used the talk page of the article as a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, instead of discussing specific, concrete, substantive issues directly related to improving the encyclopedic content of the article. (Please note that some parts of the conversations on the talk page focused on issues related to the fact that I translated two verifiable, reliable foreign-language sources and used the translations (in addition to several verifiable, reliable English-language sources) to support my edits. You can probably ignore the substance of these particular portions of the conversations because over the last 2 days, with the help of editor CambridgeBayWeather, we seem to have resolved the issue of the translations, with the final result apparently being that the foreign-language sources can be used in citations and quotations to support my edits.) Here are some talk-page diffs:
Assess the merits of my edit. Determine (or recommend) which part(s), if any, of my suggested edits (the paragraph above providing an alternative definition of RBE) are not supported by the set of sources. If my suggested edits are inadequate to describe the alternative usage of RBE, suggest a proper alternative definition of RBE, based strictly on citations from the sources (referenced at the end of my suggested paragraph): The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, TheMarker, Globes (which are all verifiable, reliable secondary sources) and The Venus Project (a primary source). (Or, of course, any additional verifiable, reliable sources that describe the Technocracy Movement's, the Venus Project's and the Zeitgeist Movement's alternative usage of the term 'RBE', such as the six TV interviews listed on the Peter Joseph web site, etc.) Thank you. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Resource-based economy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis. We are also at least four editors that agree on a "best last version" that we want to use as the basis for improving the article, and we have asked IjonTichyIjonTichy to explain what he thinks is wrong with that version so we can discuss how to improve it, but IjonTichyIjonTichy refuses to engage in constructive debate, and even admits this on the talk page. The result was an edit war, but the page is currently protected to stop his repeated edits against consensus, so that is currently under control. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC) (I added bobrayner and Night of The Big Wind as involved, and notified them, as they also have reverted IjonTichyIjonTichy's changes back to a "last good version", and hence also reasonably are involved in this). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
My involvement with the article is due to an earlier editwar at the article. I rewrote the article to a short version giving more honour to the original meaning of Resource Based Economy (an economy built on production and export of raw materials like ore and oil) instead of the Resource Based Economy theory from mr. Fresco/Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement. As a compromise I have balanced both evenly. Reason for that is that the economy based explanation is far older and widespread, both on the internet rather poorly sourced. The ideology seems to be a tiny local project, capable of generating a enormous amount of publicity. Even with the balancing act, I regard the economy based explanation as severely undervalued in the article. The ideology I regard as severely overvalued. So when complainant added a total of 1,402 bytes (about 45%, previous size of the article was 3,114 bytes) to the article, all added to the ideology section, I removed that as giving undue weight to the ideology. And I still stand for that. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) after that, I took a break from the article
OpenFuture has been spamming my user talk page. I've removed his numerous comments but he keeps on spamming. What can be done to stop his Ad hominem attacks? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, nor disputes about user conduct. If you are in a dispute about what is in the article, discuss what is in the article, not what other editors are doing or have done. If your dispute is only about user conduct, let us know and we will close this and point you to the right place to resolve that kind of dispute. If you think you have both kinds of dispute, put the editor conduct dispute on hold and work on the article conduct dispute. I will have more to say on the actual article content dispute after I have studied the issue more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Here are three proposals for inclusion as the 'Alternative use' section of Resource-based economy. (Of course the references would need to be re-positioned to the end of sentences (etc.) to make the paragraph easier to read, including the bank of references at the end of the paragraph, and the spaces between references would need to be removed, etc.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Proposal no. 1: The paragraph I proposed above in this DRN request. Proposal no. 2: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. [1][2][3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a classless,[1] moneyless,[1][2][4][3][5][6] and stateless[1][7] global system in which money,[1][2][4][3][5][6] debt,[2] credit,[2] exchange,[2][4] barter,[2] wage labor (or any other system of servitude),[2][3] private property[1][6] and the profit motive[4] would serve no purpose[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone[1][2][7] and everything is supplied.[1][2] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.[1][2][3] The premise upon which this global socio-economic system is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent[1][3] application of highly advanced science[4][6] and technology[1][4][5][6] can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources,[1][2] enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants,[2][3] and thus TTM, TVP and TZM believe that our current practice of rationing resources[2] through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.[2] It is toward this RBE idea that TTM, TVP and TZM work to educate and inform people.[1][5] TTM, TVP and TZM believe that in RBE can create a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology,[1] but by the scientific method,[1][4] venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality,[1][3][6] thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature.[1] Proposal no. 3: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. [1][2][3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless,[1][2][4][3][5][6] classless[1] and stateless[1][7] global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude),[2][3] private property[1][6] and the profit motive[4] would serve no purpose[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone[1][2][7] and everything is supplied.[1][2] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.[1][2][3] The premise upon which RBE is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent[1][3] application of highly advanced science[4][6] and technology[1][4][5][6] can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources,[1][2] enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.[2][3] Proposal no. 4: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. [1][2][3] The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless,[1][2][4][3][5][6] classless[1] and stateless[1][7] global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude),[2][3] private property[1][6] and the profit motive[4] would serve no purpose[2] and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone.[1][2][7] In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.[1][2][3]
Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? That is treating people like children that need to be led along. Bad idea. Right now the article is fairly good. All the groups mentioned in that section have links that go to their own articles if people click them. Its overkill to help people or lead people that way. A Prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement military service, orphanage??, being a logical part of the discussion??, comparing that to what we are talking about? No. IjonTichyIjonTichy is not making constructive argguments, has no support for his or hers changes on the article, is bashing fellow editors about spam and vandalizing. Best course is to give a time out to IjonTichyIjonTichy|IjonTichyIjonTichy, maybe ask him not to edit the article for a while since zero people support what he is doing and he is not listening to feedback on his edits, just doing the same types of over kill information things based on o.r. p.o.v. syn. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: remove all mention of the alternative use of the term. There is really no good reason to have an 'alternative use' section. For example, an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, including some of the main spokespersons for the movement. In several recent lectures, presentations or conversations over the last few months, Peter Joseph stated he is moving away from the term 'resource based economy' and instead using terms such as 'a new global system' etc. Please see my most recent edit of The Zeitgeist Movement. You'll notice that my edit does not mention the term 'resource-based economy', nor its abbreviation, RBE. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I do not believe that WP:DRN can help you with this issue. It appears to be a
Either completely remove all mention of the alternative use of the term RBE (because an increasing number of Zeitgeist movement members are moving away from using the term RBE, as discussed above), or significantly expand the alternative use to correctly describe TTM's, TVP's or TZM's usage of the term. The current description is incorrect. The most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM is this: "A holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet."[1][8][3]. This phrase must be included, because this is the most important core idea, the most important fundamental principle of TTM, TVP and TZM. This core idea implies that, for example, Tom Harrison "owns" all the resources on the planet, making him an enormously wealthy person. The only condition is that he share this wealth equitably with everyone else on the planet, making everybody else on the planet also wealthy. Any WP editor may choose to laugh at this idea, to ridicule it, to think it is delusional nonsense, to think it is promotional, or to think it is empty rhetoric, utopianism, communism or socialism. Editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions are valid and important. I respect, recognize and acknowledge editors' thoughts, feelings, POV and opinions. But this is the most important aspect of TTM, TZM and TVP, and it must be included, or the 'alternative use' section must be removed completely. This aspect of the 3 organizations is the basis of everything TTM, TVP and TZM stand upon. Everything else about TTM, TVP and TZM follows from this idea, is based upon this idea and builds upon this idea.
This is the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM because, in their view, once everyone on the planet "owns" everything on the planet equitably, there would be no need for money, class, or different countries/ states. That's why in my suggested edits (Proposals no. 1--4 above), I first provide the most important aspect of TTM, TVP and TZM, followed by the following, based on verifiable citations from our set of reliable sources: "This system would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor, private property and the profit motive would be eliminated. Human needs would be supplied for everyone. Resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through the technological potential of sustainable development." [I added the explanation "economic development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" only later, to satisfy Zazaban's request for clarification. This clarification is probably not needed, since readers can find it in the article on sustainable development ]. [1][8][4][3][5][6][7] IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's do a quick poll. Place your name without comment under one of the following, and optionally, add a brief comment explaining your vote in the comment section. -Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) How should the alternative meanings be mentioned?HAT NOTE
No, I've never used any other user name. I was sure I saw on some talk page somewhere some vicious attacks by you on editors of the TZM article, but probably your attacks were more recent and I'm confusing the date. Or maybe I'm confusing you with Zazaban, another editor on the TZM article, and his edits in August 2010 (which can be found on the article's edit history page). But I have no reason to not believe you, and thus I fully and un-equivocally apologize. Disclaimer: The following is not meant as a personal attack, but rather an effort to try to understand. (In fact, I'm complimenting the TZM editors.) [end of disclaimer.] Regarding your (Andy's) other specific comments on the substance of the TZM article: In essence, your comments over the last 3 months on the article's talk page (and here) may be interpreted as saying that all our reliable secondary sources are almost worthless, or, in other words, the Huff Po, NYT, Palm Beach Po, VC Reporter, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and RT TV, which have a combined readership and viewership in the millions, do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English (my words, not yours). Or in other words, your comments apparently seem to imply that an educated reader (any reader, not a supporter of the movement) could not find out for him/herself from these highly reliable publicly-available sources an explanation of the movement's ideas. If I'm correct that indeed this is the logical conclusion from your comments, do you see why your comments are erroneous --- because what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable sources who employ highly trained, reputable writers and editors who are experts in describing difficult concepts in plain English to a mass readership (and viewership) that ranges across a wide range of formal and informal educational levels and other characteristics -- in other words, a readership very similar to that of Wikipedia -- what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil. Conclusion: at least some, if not all, of these resources are actually pretty good for the purpose of developing the article. [By the way, the writer of our Huff Po source is a senior editor at that paper.] These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English, with perhaps a little bit jargon (I partially agree with you on this), but without undue jargon. The resources are not the problem. The problem appears to be that, from viewing the edit history of the TZM article over the last 2 years, and from your (legitimate, and properly worded) question regarding my past history, and from a recent comment by Zazaban on the Outline of automation accusing the TZM entry of propaganda [side note: if memory serves me right, that entry was written by the administrator for the outline project, not me], based on this evidence, I believe that you, Zazaban, OpenFuture, Bob Rayner, Tom harrison, Ankh Morpork, and other editors, all of whom only have the best intentions and are all motivated to protect our readers from bias and propaganda, are, probably not entirely unjustifiably, deeply suspicious of any new editor trying to develop the article in the interest of our readers based on verifiable citations from reliable secondary sources, and instead (as I said, not without merit), these editors (including you, and again, please don't take this as a personal attack) almost automatically suspect all such development efforts as an attempt to develop the article in the interest of TZM propaganda. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The following is not intended as a personal attack. I'm only expressing disagreement with the substance of your comments' argument/ approach/ style. You are again doing what you are very good at: it looks like you may be arbitrarily limiting the parameters of the discussion and debate to suit your needs, (or raising the bar unrealistically high as you did on the TZM talk page), coming up with all sorts of baseless excuses which may imply why a set of excellent and highly reliable secondary sources may not be good enough, implying that I can only continue this discussion and debate in the forums of your choosing, and other exercises in empty, arbitrary rhetoric that do not contribute to the development of the article and only waste everybody's time. As I wrote before several times: if instead of writing these comments full of lofty rhetoric that, in the end, do not contribute to the improvement of the article, you would have actually made the effort to cite from our resources in an effort to improve the article, the article could look better and we may not have needed to have this 'conversation' in the first place. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless someone has a suggestion as to how DRN can help, I am seriously considering closing this as "unresolved" and suggesting that you take this to WP:WQA and, if that does not help, to WP:RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:47 (UTC) Reason: Consensus appears to be that we have done all we can here.
|
Assam#Etymology
| Consensus appears to be that we have done all that we can here. The next steps seem to be Mediation, and if this fails, Arbitration. Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The current dispute is about the section Assam#Etymology. Specifically, it is about whether the name "Assam" can be traced to 13th century Shan invaders. A general consensus does exist that the name can be traced to them, but which User:Bhaskarbhagawati is resisting. A third opinion was requested, (for the discussion, look here: Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam). At the end of the section two alternative texts are given: Talk:Assam#Alternate_Text_1 (User:Bhaskarbhagawati) and Talk:Assam#Alternate_text_2 (User:Chaipau). User:H_tan_H_epi_tas responded to the Third Opinion request. User:Chaipau has accepted the verdict, but User:Bhaskarbhagawati has responded by questioning the status of User:H_tan_H_epi_tas. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
At first, attempts at discussion with User:Bhaskarbhagawati were unsuccessful. Messages left at his talk pages were blanked (see here). Comments on the talk pages were also deleted (see here). Then a Third Opinion request was made, which has led to an ad hominem attack on the Third Opinion responder.
Chaipau (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Assam#Etymology discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
--Chaipau (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
--H tan H epi tas (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks User:Guy Macon for communication, though i am already following the discussion here and not wanted to interfere while procedures are being explained. Now, i like to put my view which is already discussed in Talk:Assam but i like to mention the same here too that i said "Assam is an English word used by British to refer a piece of land in North East India and same word is never used locally before and never referred to any tribe but land". For which i have provided the views of Scholars which mentioned both in main article and talk page. But further i like to add following links of national newspapers and websites which directed towards news item regarding proposal of name change of state of Assam due to its foreign linkage. Here are links, this Link is already there in main article for some time referring to said developments and this i like add few more: Link, Link, Link, Link Thanks ! bbhagawati (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually it is a matter of controversy in State itself, so its obviously difficult for others to form a opinion. As matter is controversial in nature, i have already suggested earlier and doing again that it should mentioned POV's of different Scholars and Specialists (not own) with proper sourcing. Hope it concludes the discussion. Thanks for opinion ! bbhagawati (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway regarding my position according to the disputing user that number (1) that "Assam is based on Assam" (actually its current name Assam is based on English word Assam) refuted by Kakati's "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century."' We can easily see in the quote of said author that current name is English word which is inspired by native name Asam. Though native name was connected to medieval tribe but current name was used by British referring to piece of land (not tribe). Please note we are here discussing about only current name i.e Assam. And when i said based on English word without referring to its origin, i tried to say that particular word is English one. And regarding my position (according to same user) (2) that the name is not related to the Ahom's is refuted by Kakati's statement "Though the Shan invaders called themselves "Tai", they came to be referred to as Āsam, Āsām and Ācam by the indigenous people of the province. Early Assamese chronicles used all these variant forms to mean the new Shan invaders." And asking for reading section 2 provided by him, "Origin of 'Assam'" scan copy. We are here discussing about current name only not about other names. So while preceding mentioned names maybe connected to a tribe but current name which possibly inspired from native name (its a another issue yet to discussed in details) is used only to refer to a large piece of land not some tribe by British. So meaning of current name Assam will be "an state in North east India" but preceding mentioned names (which we are not concerned here) are related to a medieval tribe possibly. so its meaning and references has huge differences. Current word is related to land only for which said word was coined. The upload page which disputing user refers to is itself mentioned "Assam" as an Anglicize word. I like to give an example, the name "America" is taken from "Amerigo Vespucci", but word America does not refer to said person but only the source word "Amerigo". This example is directly not applicable here because unlike America the inspiring word of English word "Assam" is not yet ascertained. On support of my claim i like to forward some views of greatest Scholars State has ever produced: Banikanta Kakati says - The word Assamese is an English one,built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam. Satyendranath Sarma says:- Assamese is the easternmost Indo-Aryan language of India, spoken by nearly eight millions of people inhabiting mostly the Brahmaputra valley of Assam. The word Assamese is an English formation built on the same principle as Simhalese or Canarese etc. It is based on the English word Assam by which the British rulers referred to the tract covered by the Brahmaputra valley and its adjoining areas. But the people call their country Asama and their language Asamiya.
There is an old saying that its easy to wake up a sleeping person but no so easy when pretending. Thanks ! bbhagawati (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
bbhagawati (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Peace ! bbhagawati (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Assam was known as Pragjyotisha in Mahabharata, Puranas and in other Sanskrit scriptures. It is known as Kamarupa in first millennium A.D to Early Second millennium after a Kingdom which ruled Assam for 800 years. In medieval times Eastern part of Assam is known after a Shan tribe as Acham and later replaced by Sanskrit Asama meaning Uneven, Peerless or unequaled. Current name Assam is an English word used by British to refer Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas. The British province after 1838 and the Indian state after 1947 came to be known as Assam. Thanks ! bbhagawati (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Instead of indulging in nonconstructive practices like curtailing established facts and scholarly views, its better few more lines are added challenging those views with references. Even section can be divided concentrating on two different views along with three existing or more quotes from specialists. Freedom of expression on both sides can be a real compromise. This discussion maybe closed now. Thanks ! bbhagawati (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
How Anglicization forms new English words is already discussed in Assam talk page. Regarding transfer of texts, it is not required as everything is already mentioned in said section with full citations. Signing off from this discussion. Thanking all for cooperation ! bbhagawati (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 19, 2012 at 06:53 (UTC) Reason: Discussion stalled, nobody seems to have a solution. Perhaps posting to WP:RSN might help?
Read the related Wikipedia pages carefully for the correct procedure to follow. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Punisher title volume numbers
|  Resolved |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There has been some debate about where to include The Punisher: Purgatory in the article List of The Punisher comics, because the indicia for that comic simply says "The Punisher". This issue was debated last year, and I thought that a consensus had been reached, but now another editor insists that The Punisher: Purgatory be listed as Vol. 4 on this list, and has edit warred to maintain this POV. This editor also continues to change the volume numbers on other articles about Punisher titles accordingly, to support this POV. The List of The Punisher comics article has been temporarily protected, to force a discussion on the talk page, but I believe that some mediation by a third party is necessary. Users involved
I have tried to initiate discussion, in order to come to a consensus, but Snakebyte42 seems to be taking this personally. He has also made comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, that are personal attacks against me, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. I am simply the only one who has tried to discuss it with him, and warned him about edit warring on the talk pages, but he has not shown any desire to follow the Wikipedia policies that I have mentioned.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
As mentioned above, I have tried to discuss this on Talk:List of The Punisher comics, first in the thread titled "The Punisher: Purgatory", and then in the Discussion thread created after the page was protected from editing.
Someone who is knowledgeable about dispute resolution may be able to explain the concepts of civility, ownership, disruptive editing, edit warring and BRD to Snakebyte42. I have made references to all of those policies, but they have fallen on deaf ears, because he is more concerned about stating "I'm right and your wrong", instead of trying to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Punisher title volume numbers discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute resolution Noticeboard. Snakebyte42, I deleted your comment. Part of the deleted comment said "yes, this comment is long and talking about user interaction rather than the article itself" Clearly you know the rules but chose to not follow them. Please don't do that. We all get a bit hot under the collar at times, but you need to post arguments that are calm, reasoned, and about the article content. Lighting up your flamethrower is not helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Guy Macon, for your attempt to calm things down, so that we can debate the content being disputed, instead of taking things personally. I brought the issue here, because Snakebyte42 was directing comments at me personally, even though I am not the only editor who has reverted his edits. And instead of discussing things on the talk page after he was first reverted, he just kept reverting back to his POV. If he had presented the above information before edit warring, we may have been able to reach a consensus before now. But as it is, please allow me to address the points that he has made. Regarding the List of The Punisher comics, the article was cleaned up by me and a few other editors last year, which in itself was not without some controversy. The current format has Ongoing series and Limited series in separate sections, with the entries in the Ongoing series section listed by volume. These volume numbers do not correspond to the indicia on the comics themselves, rather to their order chronologically, because of errors that Marvel Comics has made in titling some series "Punisher" and others "The Punisher". Therefore, the volume numbers were arbitrarily assigned, based on the order of Wikipedia articles about ongoing Punisher titles. The main issue here, is with the placement of The Punisher: Purgatory. It was placed in the Limited series section, because it was never intended to be more that a 4 issue limited series. However, the title is misleading, because the incicia for the comic simply said "The Punisher". It was also labeled as vol. 2, because it was the second mini-series with that title at the time, the first being the original Punisher mini-series from 1986. This was an error on Marvel's part, because the first ongoing series was also labeled vol. 2, as it was a continuation from the first limited series. That continuation, is why the first limited series was listed at the beginning of the Ongoing series, in the list of Punisher titles. And even Snakebyte42 concedes that "as the first series was the first solo series the character received, however, it does make good sense to keep it in there even if it isn't strictly correct." Now, as I pointed out on the talk page last year, the 1995 series is referred to as v3, because it was the third ongoing series titled "Punisher or "The Punisher". I understand that The Punisher: Purgatory would chronologically be vol. 4, but since it was never intended to be an ongoing series, and it was not a continuation of the 1995 series, it does not belong in the Ongoing series section. Therefore, the 2000 series was listed as the fourth ongoing series with that title, which led directly into the 2001 series as the fifth, and the first MAX series was the sixth (before it was retitled The Punisher: Frank Castle), even though the MAX titles are not considered to be part of mainstream Marvel continuity. This may seem like original research, but it is based on the information presented in the various articles about Punisher titles on Wikipedia. Again, these volume numbers are completely arbitrary, but they are designed to present which Punisher titles were considered ongoing and which were limited, in an encyclopedic way for people who may not be familiar with The Punisher. It has been suggested that we drop the volume labeling system, and use a system solely by publication year, but since there was never a consensus on that suggestion, I have strived to maintain the current format. That's why I initially reverted the changes, and asked for discussion per WP:BRD, but an edit war broke out before any discussion took place. I apologize for my part in that, and I hope that we can use this discussion to come to a consensus about how to properly display the information on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Snakebyte42, your example of the actual volume numbers, is exactly why I said that they were arbitrary. The current volume numbers were designed, for people not familiar with The Punisher to see the progression of his various ongoing series. However, this whole debate has been because a few IP editors and I have been trying to preserve the information as it is currently presented on Wikipedia. You and I both clearly want the information presented as accurately as possible, but you went about changing it the wrong way.
Therefore, there are apparently two issues here. If you look at the talk page for List of The Punisher comics, you'll see that the current header of "Ongoing series" was decided on in place of "Primary series", when the list was reorganized a couple years ago. That's primarily why the idea of moving The Punisher: Purgatory to that section was rejected. If we do away with the volume numbers as suggested, then that section will need to be retitled, in order for it to contain all of the volumes of comics books simply named "The Punisher". The Punisher: Purgatory being a misleading title, is a separate issue. Any proposal for changing the title of that article, should have been brought up on the talk page of that article, before changing it on the list of Punisher titles. If the article is changed to "The Punisher (1998 series)", then the list and template can be changed to reflect it that way. But as is stands now, The Punisher: Purgatory does not belong in a list of ongoing Punisher titles. So I think that for both of us to be satisfied, the changes need to be made to The Punisher: Purgatory article first, with the references that you provided above. Then, for that information to be accurately presented on the List of The Punisher comics, the list will have to be reorganized, to either identify all titles named "Punisher" or "The Punisher" in one section, or for ALL of the limited series to be moved to the proper section chronologically. Whether that is best done with or without volume numbers is still debatable. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
ANOUNCEMENT: Because of recent behavior at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#User:Snakebyte42 I am recusing myself from this discussion. I no longer believe that I can remain impartial and unbiased on this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - First of all, both of the posters here (F and S) are way too verbose. Please read WP:TLDR. If you cannot succinctly make your point in 3 sentences, that is a good indicator you don't have a point to make. Second, as far as the List article goes: Top priority is simply utilizing the titles that are presented on the covers; if there are two or three different interpretations of what the name should be within the list, give both options, with a brief explanation for both viewpoints ... use footnotes or parenthetical comments to explain the ambiguities. No need to pick one or the other: supply both. Regarding "year" vs "volume" listing: it is okay for a List to contain two lists covering the same items, as seen in List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union, so consider that as an option. --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Clerk Comment: As per this WQA discussion, the matter seems largely resolved, but I'll leave this page open for another 48 hours or so in case there's any further discussion. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an "The Zeitgeist Movement: Envisioning A Sustainable Future". Huffington Post. Mar 16, 2010.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah "Resource Based Economy". The Venus Project.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w A dream worth having, Rhonda Swan, The Palm Beach Post, April 30, 2009
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "They've Seen the Future and Dislike the Present". New York Times. 2009-03-16.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of The Filmmaker Who Helped Recruit Millions for the Global Protests of the Bottom 99%, original Hebrew article by Asher Schechter, TheMarker (Israel), January 19, 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Quotations and citations in this Wikipedia article are based on the translation from Hebrew to English of Imagine, original Hebrew article by Tzaela Kotler, Globes (Israel), March 18, 2010.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j "He's A Dreamer From Venus", Mike Thomas, Orlando Sentinel, Feb. 12, 1995.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
TVP-Rwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).