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

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:England (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HWallis1993 (talk · contribs)
• Rob984 (talk · contribs)
• Daicaregos (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user Rob984 has removed the Royal Banner of England from the infobox on the England article on the grounds that it is no longer in use. In seriously misguided opinion he has stated such things in his reasoning as 'the English nation is relatively new' and that 'England has little to represent its self'. I find this users way of thinking to be completely at odds with my own. I happen to believe that the Royal Banner (removed by Rob984 himself on the grounds of his own opinion without consulting others) which is now present in two qaudrants of the current Royal Standard, is extensively used to represent England at both important ceremonial events, most sporting events and is an enduring icon amongst the English people. Rob984 has shown in his specifically 'British' nationalism that he thinks that England, a country of over 1087 years of history (773 years as the Kingdom of England) is lacking in symbols. This is false and is not a accurate view of England, which flourished in terms of heraldry before its inclusion into the Union.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried suggesting alternatives, however this user is adamant that England should not be allowed to enjoy it's heritage.I don't wish to sound petty but every country on wikipedia is allowed to enjoy it's heraldry present in its infobox. Just because it is not contemporary is not, in my opinion reason to have it removed. The flag of England altogether might be removed on this basis - but it remains because it is an important symbol of England, just as the Royal Banner or 'three lions' is.

How do you think we can help?

The Royal Banner of England was featured in the infobox on the England page for several years, with most editors being happy with it's presence - as I was. It is an iconic feature of England both at sporting and ceremonial level and is used to represent England on the current Royal Standard, a fact lost on Rob, who I might add after all these years of its inclusion into the England article removed it without consulting other editors and on the basis of his own opinion. I would like it restored.

Summary of dispute by Rob984

I agree entirely with Daicaregos. I would like to clarify however I clearly stated when I was giving a personal opinion which had no value in regards to the discussion, and HWallis1993 has heedlessly claimed these were my only reasons, completely ignoring my actually reasons which are identical to those stated by Daicaregos below. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Daicaregos

No idea why I've been dragged into this. My only involvement was to challenge two erroneous statements made by the complainant: that England “continues to remain a constituent country of the UK represented in modern day terms by its own separate legal system of England and Wales.” (which obviously isn't 'separate' in the context of the England article); and that the England article “is missing its famous motto 'Dieu et mon droit'” (it is the British monarch's motto and is used in many circumstances that have nothing to do with England e.g. passports). AFAICT, User:HWallis1993 wants to re-instate the Royal Standard of England, one of the personal arms/banners of the British monarch, to represent England on that page. No references have been provided that verify the Royal Standard of England represents England, rather than the British monarch. User:HWallis1993 also appears to wants to re-instate the motto 'Dieu et mon droit'. Similarly, no references have been provided that verify 'Dieu et mon droit' represents England, rather than the British monarch. Without WP:RS references neither should be included on the article. Daicaregos (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:England discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. The edit being challenged by the HWallis1993 is here and was done by Rob984 on 2 September 2013. The question of who has the burden of creating consensus for an edit is set by this section of the Consensus policy. Contrary to the implication of HWallis1993, the banner has not been consistently included in the infobox in recent months: it was removed in August 2012 in this edit and remained out until it was restored on 25 August 2013 in this edit. There was therefore a consensus-by-silence up until that restoration, but that restoration was challenged: It then went in and out over several days by several different editors until finally removed by Rob984 in the 2 September 2013 edit first mentioned above. I can find no history of that edit having again been challenged by any editor until HWallis1993 challenged it in this edit on January 30, 2014, some five months later. The fact that the final removal "stuck" for five months after having been challenged strengthens the consensus for omission, though it still remains a consensus-by-silence, the weakest form of consensus. On a purely procedural basis, therefore, the burden to establish consensus for re-adding the banner is on HWallis1933, the editor who wishes to reintroduce it, and the banner should not be restored until that consensus is established. I see no evidence of such burden being satisfied, so under the consensus policy the banner should not be re-added to to the infobox at this point in time. Having said all that, and understanding Rob's and Daicaregos's points about the banner/arms really belonging to the sovereign, not to the country and, thus, England not really having a contemporary set of arms or banner, and having spent a couple of hours going over all of this, I have to end up by saying that I don't think that there is an absolutely right or absolutely wrong answer here for Misplaced Pages purposes, given the fact that there are no strict policies or guidelines as to the content of infoboxes and the fact that it's pretty clear that the Royal Arms of England, of which the banner is a version, is still today an ongoing and current symbol of England. But when you get down to brass tacks, it's really a symbol of the Kingdom of England, once a possession of the sovereign but which no longer exists in independent form, not of the country of England. If I had to weigh in on a consensus decision, therefore, I'd have to side with keeping it out of the infobox but if my side of that consensus decision did not prevail, I sure wouldn't loose sleep over it, either. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs)
• Silbtsc (talk · contribs)
• Aoidh (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme." sentence has been discussed once again with the result that it contains weasel terminology "Critics..." and is unsupported by the sources one Aiodh proposed. New sources proposed by Aiodh have been taken into account with the same result (they do not support the sentence), by 2/3 editors. 100% agreement was not achieved, as the talk page demonstrates.

This dispute is an extension of the dispute already closed as Bitcoin(2), the new, extended discussion on the talk page did not help to achieve the 100% consensus on the sentence.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As mentioned, it has been discussed several times already, the disagreement between editors still persisting, the previous attempt to resolve the dispute has been closed as premature.

How do you think we can help?

Not sure this time, advice may help.

Summary of dispute by Silbtsc

Summary of dispute by Aoidh

Periodically a few single-purpose accounts will come to the Bitcoin article and attempt to whitewash any negative information, particularly the sentence related to the ponzi scheme bit, believing that the article saying that people have accused Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme is the same as Misplaced Pages agreeing with this, and try everything they can to remove the sentence. This is far from the first time this has been discussed and the previous, very lengthy discussion resulted in a consensus for the current wording. The sources both in the article and on the talk page fully support what's written in the article, yet LM seems to believe that because the sources themselves are reporting the information as opposed to agreeing with the information themselves that this somehow invalidates the entire source which is never how sources have been viewed on Misplaced Pages; this is nothing more than moving the goalposts to try to remove the information. The fact that Bitcoin has been criticized as being a ponzi scheme is covered in very reliable sources such as Bloomberg, Reuters, the European Central Bank, and countless others, this isn't some fringe, barely reported thing but a well established fact, so I'm not sure how it can be argued that it's unsourced, that's quite inaccurate.

As to the lack of 100% consensus, that not what a consensus is. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy, and both policy and the previous consensus support retaining the information. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin (3) discussion

• Having read over the full discussion at the talk page and looked at the history of the edits it seems to me that the issue is about how declarative the statement is. With the phrasing critics have accused bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme. Rather than the use of unspecified critics, who can be found in some of the sources. The discussion over at the talk page seems productive at the moment and I'll add some more there but I think the compromise is to be found in changing those two bolded portions of the text. SPACKlick (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Precision123 (talk · contribs)
• Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs)
• Dlv999 (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors do not seem to agree on these questions:

1. Is this research note a primary or secondary source?
2. Should conclusions/inferences from the source come from the actual article or the abstract?
3. Should the relevant cited sentence from the source be quoted or paraphrased in an editor's own words, per WP:QUOTE?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have engaged in ample discussion in the talk page. I also sought advice from other editors, as well as university editing guidelines, which by and large discouraged citing to abstracts over parts of the actual article.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping for some guidance in finding the answers to these questions, to get outside support, and to facilitate a resolution.

Summary of dispute by Precision 123

Andrea Levin, executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), stated in 2008 that among Israelis Haaretz is seen as a "rather far-left publication" and accused the newspaper of doing "damage to the truth" and failing to correct errors. However, a 2003 study in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics found that Haaretz reporting was more favorable to Israelis than Palestinians and more likely to report stories from the Israeli side.

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has rejected the notion that this is a primary source. The editor also contends that the author's words should be paraphrased by an editor to re-include the original statement, even though WP:PSTS reminds us to exercise caution with primary sources: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." I ask for your advice. --Precision123 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah

Summary of dispute by Dlv999

The dispute relates to how to include details a 2003 study published in The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics.

Precision wants to replace the quote currently used in the citation footnote with his own preferred quote from the paper. I don't think it is a good idea. The paper looks at 5 separate indices (use of sources, end quotes, topic and location of stories, and reporting on fatalities), reporting the findings for each parameter separately. The current quote used in the footnote comes from the article's abstract, and is a good overall summary of the paper and its findings. Precision's preferred quote is taken from the "Story Topics" section of the findings and is only a good representation of the paper's findings regarding one of the five indices it investigated. I don't have any problem including Precision's preferred quote in either the footnote, or the article text, as an addition to the current text/citation footnote, but it is not an adequate replacement for the current text and quote because of the reasons discussed above. Dlv999 (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zero0000

1. The source is a paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal and so has the highest status of all source types. Primary/secondary classification is an irrelevance.
2. The word "however" was already gone before Precision came here, so I don't know why s/he features it.
3. It is simply false that the abstract is being cited. The whole paper is cited and the abstract is quoted. The abstract is part of the paper and just as available for quotation as any other part of the paper. In fact, since the abstract was written by the author of the paper as a summary of it, using a summary that does not agree with the abstract would have WP:NOR problems.

Zero 09:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Haaretz discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pine Bush, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 76.15.104.89 (talk · contribs)
• John from Idegon (talk · contribs)
• Bgwhite (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

As the page now stands, it contains bias information about antisemitism in the Pine Bush Schools. The New York Times did not act ethically in reporting the story. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated in Federal Court where a Civil Suit is pending.

A very wealthy developer needs to justify the need for private religious schools for an illegal development project. He and the religious group he is affiliated with control significant voting blocks and have great influence over local, state and some federal officials.

The claims of antisemitism have been brought by only 3 families out of many Jewish families in the district. All 1 named parent for the aggrieved children has ties to the developer, two others apparently do, also, and this should have been investigated by the Times.

The Times used unreliable sources for some of their interviews by a biased local stringer. They ignored the fact that bullying is rampant throughout Orange County, NY schools, and more likely than not the issue of the Federal Civil Suit has more to do with that, then it does with antisemitism.

The Times picked up on an old case, because it was directed to it by the developer or his agents and a coordinated attack which included Andy Cuomo and top state officials in a series of investigations that jeopardize the fairness of the adjudication of the Federal Civil Suit. On more than one occasion Cuomo has flagrantly made comments, as did the Times and now Misplaced Pages via the addition of the citations regarding antisemitism, that rush to judgment without having the case tried in court first or the ongoing investigations completed.

The issue itself is more than a few years old, and up to the point that the developer needed to get approvals for an all girls private Yeshiva, it was a none issue that had been ignored by all police agencies and agencies of the state and federal governments.

I have done extensive research on the matter; please see talk record for details.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Originally I mistakenly added my editorial comments to the reference. John rightfully took it down. I then added a reference to a series of articles I wrote on the subject as an investigator and local community activist. That was taken down.

Without rebuttal the antisemitism reference creates a biased view of a community of basically very good people.

I endeavored to inform John about the issues, to no avail. As an investigator and community advocate I did recommend legal action.

How do you think we can help?

There are extenuating circumstances here; I joined to address this issue and my experiences with Misplaced Pages are less than minimal. I find the structure confusing, and have made mistakes. I have a responsibility to the people I serve, so I believe that my recommendation of legal action if the antisemitism reference remains uncontested is justified.

My correspondence on the talk venue documents my view and qualifications. I need to ask for fairness in representing the community on Misplaced Pages.

Summary of dispute by John from Idegon

My side of this can be summed up quickly and easily. WP:IDHT! Please see my personal talk page for the history of his "attempts" at resolving this, including the WP:NLT violation. It is hard to impossible to work on a dispute when the other editor wants to write essays and claims that they are the source. This really belongs at WP:AN/I, IMHO. John from Idegon (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bgwhite

Same user left the same message at John from Idegon's page at my talk page. They keep using http://www.wallkillwideawake.org/true_false.html as a reference. From User:Binsu Jiro, it is a site they operate. Bgwhite (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Question: @Bgwhite: By "they" do you mean the editor himself or a group he is part of? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • MrScorch6200, from the message on Binsu Jiro's user page, "I publish the Public Advocacy Informational web site, Wallkill Wide Awake". From the message left on my talk page, "I operate a Public Advocacy informational web site and have an online news entity in the design phase." Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Also, (generally) only DRN volunteers use bullets at DRN to show themselves as volunteers. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Pine Bush, New York discussion

• Question: Is the I.P. editor that filed this case the same person as Binsu Jiro? --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Yes the I.P. editor is the same as Binsu Jiro; I forgot to log on before entering the DRN entry. My apology! --Regards, Binsu Jiro (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Binsu Jiro: There is no bias information in the current paragraph. The paragraph, which is only two sentences, takes care to follow our Neutral Point of View policy, along with two reliable sources to the NY Times and the Times of Israel. Note that the sentences do not say whether the lawsuit is "ethically right" or not, strengthening that it is neutral. The sentences use words like alleged and only saying that a lawsuit arose because of the alleged bullying. There is nothing wrong with the section.

MrScorch6200, I believe The NEW YORK TIMES article itself to be bias, in so far as it was strategically times, as I explained; irresponsible sourced by a local stringer with a specific agenda to impose, and the article was coordinated with a number of events that need explanation. You have my complete comments on this issue, and my concern is about more that the NYT and the IT articles. It is about a concerted effort to manufacture a need for private Yeshivas without which the developer will not be able to populate his illegal development. My issue is the clear connection of one of the litigants to the developer, and clearly suspicious connections to the remaining litigants. The presence of these articles lends credibility to the intent of the developer, and realistically any astute follower of the politics of Political Correctness, will understand that the allegations themselves have been used to condemn a whole community with the help of the NYT, Cuomo and the developer.

I accuse the NYT and the two reporters of unethical practices in the publication of the article, and the IT with trying to solidify the slander. Israel needs a solution to the social unrest caused by their radical sects of Hassidim, and creating illegal exclusionary, monolithic communities to accommodate immigration out of Israel is a partial solution.

While I do not work for a publication like the NYT, I have investigated the facts and written an account that places all of the possibilities on the table for a reader to make up his/her own mind. I do not feel it is outrageous to allow others to decide for themselves.

Finally, I must ask what makes your other editors more credible, having not done a shred of research or having not investigated the issue. I have done the research and investigated the issues; I have been working as an investigator over the past three years for a civil rights law firm. I have worked as a photo-journalist, an Army intel analyst and am committed to constructively advocating for others who do not have the capacity to defend themselves. --Regards, Binsu Jiro (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Binsu Jiro: On Misplaced Pages, we have to show view points of an issue through reliable sources (NPOV), which is done in this case by using the NY Times source and not stating the lawsuit as a fact or opinion (hence, there is no undue weight to a side). We have no control over the content of the actual source, just the content over the Misplaced Pages article. Also know that Original Research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, which is what you are claiming that you have done. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 03:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Unless another volunteer disagrees, I am tempted to keep this case open even though there is very little talk page discussion. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PLNR (talk · contribs)
• dlv999 (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Trahelliven (talk · contribs)
• AnonMoos (talk · contribs)

All editors that have commented in that section have been included, per dlv999 request.

Dispute overview

The topic of the article is tht 'UN Partition Plan of Palestine'(1947). The dispute concerns the background section, which covers several milestones during the British Mandate period(1918-1947), one of the paragraphs within covers one of the commissions, the Peel Commission, notable for being the first to state that the mandate had become unworkable, and suggest Partition for the first time. Its rejection by both parties, led the following Woodhead Commission technical commission, to decide that no partition could be devised without agreement.

User dlv999, have made and or supports several inclusions to that paragraph, which he claim to be significant to the topic( per WP:RS and NPOV). Those inclusions providing detailed perspective of one of the involved parties, describing in details one of the recommendations and the reason for reject the Peel plan.

I became concerned that those inclusion(and their volume) do not contribute to the nominal subject(UN Plan) of the article, instead cover in detail tangentially related subject(Peel Plan) in a biased maner since it only present on side. In violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and possibly a WP:COATRACK.

I have repeatedly asked dlv999, to support his claim that his inclusion is WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, he ignored my request or changed the subject. Most recent discussion

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have started several discussion, tried to narrow the topic so we address only one issue at a time, tried to offer compromise by addressing various concerns noted. Nothing productive came out of it, dlv999 ignore my request, change the subject or quote vague regulations to fill his posts.

How do you think we can help?

Address the issue of policy, concerning the inclusion of those details, without substantiating that they are WP:DUE in the context of the UN Plan, NOT Peel Plan.

Summary of dispute by dlv999

Personally I think this is premature. There are a large group of active editors interested in the article. I would like to see other editors express an opinion on the talk page to see if there is any consensus behind either PLNR or my proposal, or if some sort of compromise can be agreed. If that is unsuccessful perhaps an RfC to include the views of uninvolved editors. I think the wider group of editors we can involve the better. I think a long drawn out debate between myself and PLNR is not going to be the best way forward. Dlv999 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AnonMoos

Not sure why I'm significantly involved; haven't edited that section of the article (that I can remember), or expressed an opinion on the specific matter under dispute (I only expressed a general opinion that the 1947 Partition Plan article is probably not the place to go into any great detail on the 1937 Peel Plan, which was a very different plan proposed under very different circumstances). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zero0000

Summary of dispute by Trahelliven

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nokia Lumia 1520 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FDMS4 (talk · contribs)
• Götz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors want an issue hidden and continue to remove the issue after three references provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page and providing up to three references.

How do you think we can help?

By confirming whether or not the references provided are reliable or not.

Summary of dispute by FDMS4

Please note that not everything that has reliable sources is relevant enough for mentioning in an encyclopedia, as I stated several times in edit comments and on the talkpage. Misplaced Pages is not a product support site.

The IP adress is clearly editwarring in the article, as he/she put the paragraph into the article several times altough there was obviously no consensus on the talkpage. |FDMS 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Götz

Nokia Lumia 1520 discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Simplywater (talk · contribs)
• slimvirgen (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

I'm a Christian Scientist, and have asked two things on the Christian Science page. First is that the beliefs be listed in a place where people can see them and second, that the first sentence be neutral.

I really don't understand how this system works. There are editors who are able to make as many changes that they want. Paragraphs. There isn't any discussion. I have discussed issues on the talk pages. They at first ignored it. Then I complained and they started responding.

The issues at hand are 1. That the first sentence be neutral about Christian Science. Some people believe it is a part of new thought, yet it is also studied under the umbrella of Christianity. I have listed lots and lots of sources that refer to Christian Science as Christian. They will not mention this. They will say "Christian Scientists 'think' it is Christian. But that is another way that the Christian Right has tried to marginalize Christian Science over the years. 2. I asked that the beliefs of Christian Science be presented. I showed them 4 reliable sources, sources they they have used themselves, but those beliefs do no align with the point they are trying to make. They are trying to prove that Christian Science is not Christian, but Christian Scientists think it is.

So they will not include the tenets in a box for everyone to see.  Christian Science is not being treated fairly here.  I've looked at other pages.  I don't mind controversy.  I don't mind if they make their case.  But I feel a bit raped on this site.  Sure I could call a bunch of friends who are Christian Scientists and ask them to get on and argue.  But somehow I thought Misplaced Pages had a fair system.

Are there some people who kinda own an article? Christian Scientist are not going to tend to be aggressive and get involved because we are not suppose to debate Christian Science in public. I'm a bit unorthodox, but I know when something is fair and when it is not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the talk page. They are very savy and I am not.

How do you think we can help?

I guess we could discuss weather it is fair that the beliefs of Christian Science, as stated by the religion and by 4 different academic sources are posted where people can see them and that the first sentence be neutral. They have bullied me every time I make some edits. I'm rally very sad by this process.

Summary of dispute by slimvirgen

Summary of dispute by

Christian Science discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute

• Super Bowl LII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Presbitow (talk · contribs)
• Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview Dealing with a persistent editor who keeps removing my comments or edits. I've tried creating Super Bowl LIII posting it with experimental data and even removed the score and stuff but the article was written off as a "hoax" when it is clear that the article is about a future event. In addition, a protection bug prevents me from reposting the article and now I have to use a period in the title. The article was proposed for deletion but someone keeps jumping the gun.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've responded on my talk page and tried restoring my comments but the person I am dealing with has reverted.

How do you think we can help?

1. Advise the other user not to take it personally and realize he or she is just one of many people who contribute and may encounter things he or she doesn't agree with.

2. To repair the original title and allow editing in a way that conforms to the rules. It's true the "results" were made-up, but I was in the process of removing them and creating a generic page for the game.

In addition, the article's existence should be discussed as creating and deleting repeatedly is counterproductive. Clearly this is a dispute that needs to be resolved without fighting.

There were previous attempts to create Super Bowl LIII before I created my account, so restricting creation of an article that's going to get created eventually was somewhat odd given that other editors will have to use a different title until the problem is fixed.

Summary of dispute by Zzyzx11

Here's a summary of my actions:

• I reverted Presbitow's comments on Talk:Super Bowl LII because it violated WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:TALK In my judgement, the comments were about the subject of the article itself, not comments about how to improve the encyclopedia.
• @Wizardman: was the one who salted the Super Bowl LIII page, not me. Presbitow was previously warned by two others about its pending deletion.
• I deleted Presbitow's first version of Super Bowl LIII. (with the period) under WP:G3 because it listed a non-existent game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Carolina Panthers (this was similar to the version Wizardman deleted and salted). I then posted the uw-hoax message on the user's talk page. I then deleted Presbitow's second version, which listed three now-deceased TV commentators as its announcers, among others. Presbitow then replied on his talk page that "The results were experimental", to which I responded that he use the sandbox. My response to use the sandbox was about eleven minutes before he initiated this DRN request.
• I also reverted his edits on Super Bowl LII because it was breaking the link. There was no glitch. As you will also note in those edits, he removed the line for the Superdome/New Orleans, which was referenced in his aforementioned comment on the Talk:Super Bowl LII. Again, my actions were before I could have a chance to discuss this extensively on a talk page.

I feel that this user quickly went here to WP:DRN before this issue was "discussed extensively on a talk page". As you can see, one problem is the the creation of Super Bowl LIII. (with the period) which circumvents a salted page (this circumvented page now appears to have been deleted by yet another admin). I am also concerned that he still trying to scrub mention of New Orleans on those articles, and falsifying of title of the reliable source. I would have also mentioned that on his talk page (and the reason why articles on future Super Bowl are usually deleted per rule 1 of WP:BALL, or that he should also consult with the admin who salted the Super Bowl LIII), but again he jumped the gun here on DRN before I could catch up -- and further investigate the actual concerns and respond appropriately (like the comments below). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl LII discussion

• I added two citations from NFL.com directly that verify that New Orleans is in the running for Super Bowl LII. It is not an editor's place to remove cited content solely because they personally believe that it is highly unlikely that New Orleans will get it (and state this opinion on the article's talk page), under WP:No original research. An editor may add a reliable source that gives the city's chances. But they should not scrub it entirely, or falsify the source's title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Future Super Bowl articles are frequently deleted under rule 1 of WP:BALL. There should be enough verifiable, cited content from reliable sources to warrant a separate article. For Super Bowl articles, this cited content may reference cities who have announced bids, or planning to do so (see 2028 Summer Olympics for example). An editor should not merely create a placeholder if nothing can really be said about them that is verifiable and not original research beyond merely saying one sentence of prose: "Super Bowl XXXX will take place in and be televised by XXX" (like 2032 Summer Olympics). Otherwise, it will either eventually be deleted, or merged and redirected to the main article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• There were previous attempts to replace the deleted article before I joined. If Misplaced Pages were a "crystal ball", we'd be fortune tellers. It's clear the majority of content doesn't mention future events. --Presbitow 08:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presbitow (talk • contribs)

  Do you want to debate the rule or the article you want to create? The previous attempts to replace the deleted article, as I mentioned, could be copy-edited to just one sentence of prose and very little or no citations. If you have more to offer to warrant a separate article, I am willing to listen. Otherwise, a placeholder is useless to readers compared to a redirect to an existing page that has the same basic information, like this you made for Super Bowl LIV. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, even if it's 5 years away, I'd be willing to find sources the way you did to support the New Orleans claim, even though it sounds ridiculous that one venue should get priority over 31 other teams (original site mentions a "rotation" where New Orleans get greater priority possibly due the the 2005 hurricane). I understand you get offended with the initial article I posted, but when you persisted in deleting without any data, I figured I need a solution we could agree on without warring. As for the "crystal ball" claim, I assert that would be for articles decades into the future, not a few years. You might think different, but then again WP's rules are not etched in stone. Presbitow (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Zzyzx11 deleted my comment on SB XLII's talk page twice. While his/her assertion that the discussion should focus on improving the article, there is no reason someone can't ask a question about the subject from time to time. Had he/she explained it in response then and there I would have been less inclined to seek a dispute resolution and used our talk pages instead. Presbitow (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Talk pages are for discussing the article. The edit summary given, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, only to discuss how to improve this Misplaced Pages article", linked to Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM, is adequate explanation. All Presbitow had to do was click on the link. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• null (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

This article contains information in the Shared Background section which I can find no substantiation. In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa, where they founded the company, Credit Collections Bureau, currently located in North and South Dakota. The company was later sold to a private friend of the family.

The footnotes contain no information about Credit Collections Bureau.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've attempted to talk with the head of Credit Collections Bureau. He hung up on me.

How do you think we can help?

Please provide verifiable information regarding this citation.

Summary of dispute by null

Summary of dispute by

Dzhokhar and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Earfalus (talk · contribs)
• bender235 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Is the history of Atlantis fiction or Mythology. I changed "fictional " to Mythical" and he changed it back

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion,rather one sided

How do you think we can help?

Public input

Summary of dispute by bender235

Wow, didn't expect this to end up here. Anyhow, here's my brief summary. The question is: in the lede of the Atlantis article, do we refer to Atlantis as a "fictional" or "mythical" island? I insisted (and still do) on describing it as "fictional", because "mythical" implies connection to Greek mythology or religion. However, Atlantis, unlike for instance the Fortunate Isles, does not exist in Greek mythology or religion. It only exists in Plato's work, and is therefore as fictional as are Meropis, Panchaea, or Nephelokokkygia. And for the record, one may consult peer-reviewed essays by classicists on the topic (, , ) if one does not believe me. --bender235 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

atlantis discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.