Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:34, 4 December 2012

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 12:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

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

Bitcoin as an investment

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pratyeka (talk · contribs)
• SudoGhost (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Large numbers of people want to improve the Bitcoin#As an investment section's current content, which is basically one-sided, poorly-sourced opine.

There is great content available (such as a quote from the Bitcoin lead developer on how Bitcoin is a particularly high risk investment), but due to protected status people cannot contribute this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I came to the discussion after I was asked to revert what I considered an uncontroversial edit to the page, and was amazed at the volume of discussion already present.

Noting that the discussion was dying out, I tried to take a middle ground, and participate in the existing talk page discussion, even going so far as to praise the cautionary nature of SudoGhost's approach thus far, invite other participants back and propose an example rough draft of some fairer text.

How do you think we can help?

Remove the section (currently poorly sourced links to one-sided opine) and require a rewrite to be proposed incorporating suggestions from the community before its re-instatement.

Review the edit protection status of Bitcoin, which is a fast-evolving area and one in which additional community involvement is sorely needed.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

There are "large numbers of people", yes. They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums. The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find. I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE. I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion", but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer. The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Response by Pratyeka

• There are "large numbers of people", yes.

I am glad that we agree on this.

• They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.

Whilst this is probably a legitimate concern, if you could provide some assessment of account lifetimes and/or edit histories to back this up it would be a more meaningful statement. However, before investing time in such an endeavour, I think we should agree that even if this is true, it does not detract from the problem of the content being lopsided and basically opine, with far better sources available.

• "The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find."

The significant discussions have been centered on a specific section, not the whole page. Furthermore, in levelling the 'Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme' accusation, which is essentially all that the current content consists of, one should normally be aware of what properties such a scheme has, and how these are present within the Bitcoin system (which is discussed deeply throughout the rest of the article). Simply quoting some news does not make a statement correct. Quoting a formal analysis from an expert body makes a statement far more weighty. As I said, I am not at all against including this information, however it needs to be properly balanced with either more formal considerations of Bitcoin's potential categorization as such a scheme (I believe the European Central Bank made such an analysis, concluding the opposite, a link to which was provided by other contributors - such sources should not be overlooked in favour of defamatory news snippets). Finally, recall that what brought me to the discussion in the first place was the fact that the dubious accusation was sourced only to a dead link - as someone with professional knowledge of the topic, I made what I considered an uncontroversial edit in removing the suggestion entirely. The re-citation of various claims to this effect is new, and is the only change that has been instantiated to the section since discussions began, as far as I am aware. This is clearly also one-sided.

• I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE.

This is not the case, far more reliable and well reasoned sources than news snippets have been provided.

• I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion",

Thank you, this is good. Somehow my own and perhaps others' impression from your actions thus far has been something closer to the opposite. Perhaps we can move forward by removing the disputed statement and constructing an alternative together? The current situation of denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources to the current lopsided opine is not exactly fair and even handed.

• ...but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer.

This statement is incorrect on a number of levels, integrating multiple invalid assumptions. And again, we are only discussing a specific section, not the article as a whole.

• The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Correct. However, denying alternate edits, which is the current situation, is in effect placing judgement. You will see that the section was only removed after the failure to come to a consensus on how to reinvigorate it. Although you have claimed that I am biased, I do not feel any bias, but I do think the section is worthless as it stands and needs to be rewritten with fair community involvement. It seems clear that, whether intentional or not, you seem to have sidelined that process by being petty and unconstructive. I would be happy to write a new version myself, but you have claimed that I am 'involved' and biased and therefore I should not. Meanwhile everyone else has given up in frustration. Because I can see a problem and don't want it to stay there, we now have a dispute.

• Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

prat (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue that discussion, but if you're going to respond, I will do so as well. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is the entire point, that's what I've been saying. Yes, it was a WP:DEADLINK but per that very same thing, it doesn't matter if the link was "dead", it's still a valid source, and anyone reading the discussion would see that the link was already archived and provided in the discussion, and that other sources were also given. "We're discussing a specific section" is a horrible red herring; I never once suggested that I was ever, at any point, not talking about this one specific section. I think claiming that I am "denying edits I dislike" is an inappropriate and inaccurate comment. True, there are a few things I disliked about the discussion: I dislike people asserting that my mother is a whore, yes. I dislike people being canvassed in order to try to force a "consensus" to remove content that might reflect poorly on Bitcoin. These things I dislike. Discussing what the article needs to say, I do not dislike.

You also say that "everyone else has given up in frustration", but I don't think that's quite accurate. You may not have noticed, but the discussion has two parts. In the first part, most of the editors that discussed the content were concerned the with specific wording, since they were concerned that the wording in the article suggested that Bitcoin was a ponzi, as an absolute truth. That wording was changed as a result of the first part of that discussion, and no longer makes it seem this way. The discussions on the off-wiki forums suggested that this was what most people had the issue with. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the editors stopped editing after the edit was made. I also did not claim you were biased, I claimed you were WP:INVOLVED, those are not the same. Claims of "denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources" is all kinds of incorrect. One, I didn't propose or provide those sources, another editor did. Two, if I "denied" an edit, it was because of a policy or guideline based reason (such as trying to use a person's blog being used as a reliable source), not because I "dislike" the edit. Three, Reuters is not a "bad source".

I've asked multiple times for reliable sources that can expand the article in a way that makes the sentence "neutral". Someone's blog (that they wrote just before it was posted on the talk page), and an open wiki are not reliable sources, so yes, I "dislike" these edits. I've been waiting for someone, anyone to propose a reliable source and wording that can be included in the article, but instead we've been hung up on trying to remove the statement altogether. Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme. This is reflected by reliable sources. It's a fact, and it belongs in the article. If we're going to sit here and go back and forth arguing that it somehow isn't true, that somehow Reuters and others are lying, then we're not discussing moving forward. I haven't found any sources to support your position, I've looked. Considering how much you're asserting that these sources must exist, maybe you should look for them? If they don't exist, then it isn't an "unbalanced" statement; WP:NPOV is not a 50/50 situation, especially if there are no reliable sources to back a statement. See Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" and Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Since I cannot find them, and you're seem to be suggesting they're out there somewhere, I've been doing nothing more than responding to what others have said; if you want to discuss how to expand the section and move on, I'm more than willing to discuss that, but if you want to instead continue to repeat these same discussions over and over, don't blame me when that's all that is discussed. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by administrator EdJohnston

Bitcoin as an investment discussion

As an admin who has protected Bitcoin in the past, I was invited to comment here. I'll wait until the discussion is formally opened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. I have restored the discussion above. I invite EdJohnston to make his statement, and Pratyeka to show what he/she wants the section to be like, so we could discuss that instead of making a resolution in the dark. Also, DRN is not to review any administrative action such as protections. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:SudoGhost is very familiar with the socking problems on this article. If he was to suggest unprotection, I'd certainly take that seriously. It seems he is still supporting continued protection while holding out for some better sourcing. While we are waiting for unprotection to become reasonable, can't an RfC or other discussion be started on the talk page, to try to settle the outstanding issues? Also, can someone familiar with the article say whether the 'editprotect' system has been able to produce some genuine improvements? If we are to judge by the above statement of User:Pratyeka there is a big furor about whether to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. If this Ponzi claim is truly driving the off-Misplaced Pages pressure on this article then perhaps an RfC that is solely addressed to getting compromise wording on the Ponzi issue could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You may certainly start an RfC, and this noticeboard can be used for discussion that has failed before. We're trying to settle the problems here for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why User:Pratyeka opened this request, since the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin does not appear to be stalemated. There is an active thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. There are many participants in that thread. The main problem is that the thread is very long and somewhat rambling and judging consensus might be difficult. If it would help to get better focus on a single proposed draft I'm sure someone could open a WP:RFC on the article talk page. I left a suggestion to this effect at User talk:Pratyeka#What's the DRN about? and I hope he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy take the time to try to summarize (again). Look for a new subsection on the talk page shortly. prat (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this thread as this discussion will continue on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No please don't. The discussion is stalemated and has been for a long time. SudoGhost is simply not possible to work with and it does not appear possible to edit the page without him. If you read the discussion (please do even though it's long), it will become apparent that SudoGhost refuses to accept the definition of ponzi scheme used by Misplaced Pages itself, refuses to accept sources that provide logical arguments for why it's not a ponzi scheme on the grounds that they were written because of these sorts of disputes and refuses any proposed modifications - citing ever more obscure rules to do so. What's more nobody else on the Talk page agrees with him on this (because the wrongness of the statement on the page is a matter of logic, it shouldn't even need sources). Let me repeat this - nobody supports SudoGhosts position. The Talk page is long not because there's genuine debate here but because SudoGhost replies to absolutely every single point made by lots of different people. Without some kind of appeals or dispute resolution process that replaces the section the page will remain locked Mike Hearn (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Pratyeka for making a new summary at Talk:Bitcoin#Summary of my own view of the discussion status (by request). Meanwhile, I have checked through the thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. It seems that many participants in that thread could have been recruited to the discussion from offsite. SudoGhost has provided some links to mailing lists where changing the Misplaced Pages article has been discussed. My test for who is a 'regular editor' is someone who has made more than 20 edits in 2012. In the thread, besides SudoGhost I only noticed User:Nagle, User:Jtibble and User:Pratyeka to be long-term Misplaced Pages editors who were obviously not recruited. In spite of the apparent selective nature of the participation in that thread, it does not appear to be an insuperable task to create a neutral version of the Ponzi section. I would recommend that Pratyeka (who is an admin) not close any edit requests himself, given that he holds a position on the issue for which he is advocating here. I notice he has already self-reverted some changes he made to Bitcoin while the article was under full protection. As regards the continued protection, until the Ponzi section is settled down I think lifting it is unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have underscored the fact that I really do not care what the public perception of Bitcoin is and for this reason do not consider myself biased or 'involved' in this case. I have fully supported SudoGhost's attempt to maintain references to the accusations within the article from the word go, as can be seen in my comments on the talk page. I was only brought to the discussion after SudoGhost asked me to revert what I considered and still consider an uncontroversial edit to remove an illogical claim sourced with a single dead-link. This has turned in to a huge waste of time discussing the matter, which was already complained about in depth, and with no forward motion, as Mike has pointed out. The protected status combined with SudoGhost apparently being upset about some of the previous personal attacks he has received while contributing to the protected page discussions has resulted in a situation in which facilitating positive change does not appear to be the outcome of his participation, rather, we have a stalemate. I am still very much for unprotecting the page. Protection should be a last resort, right now I see little purpose in protection as rollbacks are easy and individual changes are best discussed on the talk page when and where controversial as per WP:Be bold. prat (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV section template while discussions continue. prat (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(This will be my first DRN, so bear with me if I mess up, I'm only human) - Well, since this is stale I'll reopen it. I see that this is very hostile and I've seen this dispute show up in many places recently. I looked over the one sentence section that this dispute is all about, and it seems well sourced. If defensive statements from Bitcoin users were added it would seem a bit more suitable and less POV, though. Have any sources for defensive statements been suggested in the past? --Nathan2055 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, right now there are three concrete proposals for replacement text on the talk page. prat (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am (of course) unsure how you are counting 'concrete proposals', however, I want to point out that I believe SudoGhost has some level of acceptance for the (my) proposal in the section What does the section need to cover as it was based off of his 'draft proposal'. Additionally, none of the 'SudoGhost opposition' has complained about this proposal in any way, let alone claiming it is unbalanced. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@prat: Great, could I have a link? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055 03:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean a link to the proposals? They are highlighted in bold under the section titled Proposed resolutions. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been watching this discussion for a while and would like to ask a few questions.

1. The dispute is focused around the 1 sentence assertion about the Ponzi scheme?
2. What would the least level of compromise you could accept be to close out this dispute?
3. What changes are needed to improve the article as opposed to wanted?

I'll keep my personal thoughts shrouded but would love to hear what the disputants think. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the one sentence assertion (also relatively weightily highlighted with a section heading) is the issue. Compromise would be agreeing upon replacement text that is more even-handed and informative, such as the concrete proposals mentioned at Proposed resolutions. What changes are needed: actual information on Bitcoin as an investment, in the section titled 'criticisms (or concerns?): bitcoin as an investment', instead of a spurious, illogical accusation that's largely sourced to some table-thumping politician who managed to get press coverage. The great content we have there include the results of an analysis by the ECB, a statement from the head developer. We have not been able to make much headway thus far on taking down the ponzi schema accusation in a point by point basis precisely because the definition is so vague and no specific person of any repute has bothered to take it on. Instead, there's a Bitcoin community statement on the matter on a Wiki, but SudoGhost feels this is not cite-worthy, which others including myself would challenge (depends upon what the statement is, eg. '...whilst members of the bitcoin community have rejected ....' could be cited with that wiki, IMHO). Basically we've got loads of content, but we don't have the time, space, expertise or specific quotable quotes to disassemble the accusations logically, and nor should we, since that would be original research. I think we just need to roll together what we have in a readable way as true statements and leave the reader to make up their own mind. If anyone new would like to attempt to write some proposal text here, that would be great, as despite - or because of - a lengthy discussion, we are now short of people who are still willing to contribute. Sigh. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ruba'i article

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ruba'i (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Writer83175 (talk · contribs)
• Justice007 (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited a statement for accuracy, based on scholarly sources: specifically I stated that in Persian verse the ruba'i was written as a couplet divided into hemistiches. When Justice007 asked asked me and I quote "Which books or scholars say 'rubaí contians only two lines'???" I gave him the following references:

"The ruba'i, pronounced rubā'ī, plural rubā'īyāt, is a two-lined stanza of Persian poetry each line of which divided into two hemistiches making four altogether, hence the name ruba'i, an Arabic word meaning 'foursome'" (from Peter Avery's Introduction to 'The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, pg.9)

"Leaving legend aside, it is sufficient to note that from an early date the term rubā'i began to be used for a poem having two main characteristics: (1) two verses (bait) or four hemistiches (mișrā'), with a rhyme scheme aaaa or aaba; (2)The metre known in Arabic terminology as hazaj ...." from the article "The Rubā'ī in Early Persian Literature" (written by L. P. Elwell-Sutton, in The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, edited by R. N. Frye, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.634.)

Not only did he refuse to read the sources but he insists that they support his point when they don't and (in an obvious show of bad faith) stated the following:

"It seems to me a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I am not a person who casts pearls before swine. You read only the books but I have experience of both reading and writing classical and very technical rubaiyaat. I do not need your certificate, mind your own business and happy editing as the wiki rules. Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)"

Thus admits that he does not have any sources to which contradicts my claim, but (out of arrogance) persists in removing accurate information from the webpage.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided the references requested by Justice007, but not only does he persist in ignoring the references but he has brought in other users (specifically Drmies) to intimidate me (even manipulating the page so that Justice007's edits would have to be manually reverted.) I warned Justice007 twice about his vandalism twice and even filed a report -- which the administrator ignored (essentially telling me "its not a good idea to report.")

How do you think we can help?

This seems like more than a a dispute about content, since accurate information is being willfully kept off the page (despite solid evidence.) Therefore, I think these users should be blocked.

Opening comments by Justice007

• It is very simple thing that cited sources by Writer83175, supporting the edits that were done by me and Spanglej , I explain him saying that " what you refer the source 4 that support us ( me and Spanglej), "known as ruba'i (four line poem) dobaith (two-couplet-poem"). You, suppose as IP 75.24.202.15 did this. Which books or scholars say "rubaí contians only two lines"???." But user did not willing to discuss in a constructive way, he remained reverting to his choice rather than what the source states as here,page.633 and 634 provided himself. and not understanding just himself. There is no matter of compromise, Ruba'i is just four line poem (two-couplet-poem), not less not more, and source is there. Two editors are also agree on this point. I did not invite Drmies, I have just taken a look at his edit. He is very fair, neutral and good faith editor and administrator. I do not think someone will think bad faith of him.!!!. My point is clear, what must I more discuss, if someone is not understanding or not willing to understand. May any volunteer helps that user.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Drmies

• I think whoever filed this has dug a deep enough hole. I made one edit to the article to remove some incorrect italics and fix grammar, and get charged with some kind of manipulation? The two sources provided for that sentence which I edited seem to support Justice's edit, as I indicated in my edit summary. Justice did not ask me to step in in anyway, and I considered leaving leaving edit-warring templates for the both of them but there had been enough yelling; I thought a brief edit summary might help to settle it. I was wrong: whoever this filer is, they appear to be an old hand at finding the dramah boards and possible a quick block for combative editing/edit warring. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ruba'i article discussion

Welcome to DRN, I'm a volunteer on the noticeboard. Before commenting on the actual dispute, @Writer83175, on Misplaced Pages, vandalism has a very specific definition, and is usually restricted to blatant nonsense like irrelevant obscenities and crude humor. Content disputes are not considered vandalism, as per WP:NOTVAND, which is why the administrator declined the AIV report. Also, please assume good faith of Drmies, whose only involvement in this dispute so far has been a minor copyedit of the article.--xanchester (t) 06:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Found this, from the Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill, which defines the ruba'i as a:

"quatrain (plural rubāʿīyāt, from the Arabic rubāʿī, “quadripartite”)... It consists of two distichs (bait) or four hemistichs (miṣrāʿ) rhyming together with the exception of the third (aaba), the third being called k̲h̲aṣī (“castrated”); the two hemistichs of the first bait (muṣarraʿ) must rhyme."

It appears that the ruba'i is a quatrain that can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs. Does that help?--xanchester (t) 10:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely that is it, already has been said in different words, if we fairly understand.Justice007 (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then would phrasing it as "the quatrain can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs" please all the parties? Is that a workable compromise?--xanchester (t) 11:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A note: Writer83175 has contacted me on my talk page, and said that he is abstaining from the DRN discussion and Misplaced Pages in general.--xanchester (t) 11:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He should not leave the wikipedia, this is just a discussion, disagreement does not mean, we leave wikipedia, and we should not take it personally, we just learning from each other, no one is perfect, I hope he will remain to contribute his knowledege for the readers of the wikipedia.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So now, I think we should close the thread. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I hope he returns. This request should be closed within a day if there are no further replies. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and his input is always welcome. --xanchester (t) 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k., I'll concede that the compromise (that the ruba'i could be written either as four full lines or as a couplet divided into four hemistiches) is reasonable. In fact, I italicized "written" in the initial edit to indicate that at least one version of the ruba'i was written as two lines (as has been confirmed above) but nonetheless still had four distinct spoken parts (given the caesuras in the version written as hemistiches.) In terms of leaving Misplaced Pages, I had decided to leave because it seemed that Justice007 was acting as if he "owned" the Ruba'i article and was the final authority on the subject -- phrases like "mind your own business" would seem to indicate such -- and in such a case, I was quite prepared to say "Fine, it's all yours ...." However, in light of Justice007's graciously extended "olive branch," I will reconsider (although time constraints are now also working against future contributions.) In any case, my apologies to Drmies for misinterpreting his intentions and for any other "unwise" words uttered on my part.Writer83175 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writer. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - The wording "the quatrain can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs" seems ambiguous to me. The "or" could mean (a) that 2 couplets = 4 hemis" ; or (b) 2 couplets are not the same as 4 hemis, and a Ruba'i could be one or the other. Maybe the wording should be something like: "Ruba'i consist of four lines. The four lines may be regarded as two couplets of two lines each. Each line may be regarded as a hemistich." Or something like that. Non-poetry readers (and I'm one of them) will need it spelled out to them. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify the wording "with rhymes at the middle and end of each line"? I'm not sure what that means: The article says the rhyme pattern is AABA. Those are the ends of the four lines, right? But there are 4 additional rhymes in the middle of each line"? So is the rhyming pattern MA, MA, MB, MA? Does the "middle" rhyme match or not match the end rhyme? If someone could update the article to make that clearer, that would be great. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My note

• Actually article Ruba'i is very poor, wrong and not reliable. Basically Ruba'i belongs to Persia and its metres ( Beher) had been created by a non-Arab poet Abul Hassan Rodeki (some writers add more names) and that was also brought into practice by non-Arab poets. Urdu, (Hindi) poets followed them. Ruba'i (quatrain) has especial metres containing 24 categories (one can say classes or branches too). Ruba'i can only be composed in those especial metres, not any other normal metre, if it is so, that means that is not Ruba'i. Ruba'i is consist of only four lines, its two lines called (Sehr),Stanza. Ruba'i's first and second line must be end in rhyme (example-as behold and cold.), third without rhyme, but within 24 especial metres, that can not be changed, and forth line again in the selected rhyme,but that forth line (misra) contains high, strong and complete and deep meaning, that must be related with above three lines. There should be addressed only one point or subject, not as like ghazals or other forms of the poetry have. As a poet myself, as I have written in my books, and as I have read in few old academic and classic books (that I have in my library).That is the exact description and definition of the Ruba'i in Urdu, Hindi and Persian, I do not know about English Rubaí that in which metres it is composed?. One should and must know that similarly there is qat'aa that also contains four line but it is not composed in especial metres as Ruba'i. Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing notice: This discussion appears to be stale and the listing editor has not edited Misplaced Pages in several days after indicating that he no longer intends to edit Misplaced Pages. I propose to close it as stale/resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this posting, unless someone wishes to discuss it further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Jat people

Premature, needs more substantial discussion on talk page. See closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution