Revision as of 21:35, 26 February 2014

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 14:46, 11 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.

Current disputes

Artpop

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Reece Leonard (talk · contribs)
• STATicVapor (talk · contribs)
• IndianBio (talk · contribs)
• Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Various users engaged in a debate on what the critical consensus should be listed as as much as four months ago, but in the past month the disagreement was brought up again with three main contributors. I've cited two sources that claim the consensus is generally positive, and STATicVapor has consistently refused to discuss them in lieu of his own research and interpretation of what the critical consensus is and will cite certain parts of a source that I have cited myself (Metacritic) and ignore others that contradict his viewpoint, namely the consensus that is stated on this source's page that aligns with my claim. IndianBio initially sided with STATicVapor, but after I spoke with him on his talk page and presented my analysis, we both agreed that a larger viewpoint was needed on the discussion as he agreed my analysis was factual and necessary the conversation. STATic has been adament in his adherence to his own WP:ORin the past (converting the Venus (Lady Gaga song) page to one of a promotional single was a chore that he opposed for quite a while based purely on his own conjecture). The consensus listed on the ARTPOP page is factually inaccurate; Metacritic is the only source that those who argue for the "mixed to positive" consensus are willing to cite, even though Metacritic forms a conglomerate of reviews for the sole purpose of using them to form a weighted, calculated score and consensus. In the matter of this album, the consensus is "generally favorable". There are more mixed reviews listed on the cite, but I'd like to combat that statement with multiple points: 1) Focusing on the number of categorical reviews is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring others doesn't make any sense. 2) Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. If those reviews are discounted, the vast majority that STATic has been claiming to exist in the mixed section evaporates. 3) I realize that gossip sites and the blogosphere has had a field day with the dip in critical acclaim for the artist at hand, but you can't go by what gossip sites say (most of the sources STATic has listed are either gossip blogs or small journals); yes, the acclaim is less than her previous works, but the trend is still generally positive, as proven by the consensus listed on Metacritic and the consensus reported by an actually credible journal (the Huffington Post source I listed on the ARTPOP talk page that states that the consensus was positive from the multitude of critics that they sourced and linked to, something none of his sources did). As dealers of fact, it is our job to ignore the noise of the blogosphere and report on what is sourced and provable; in this case, the critical consensus is generally positive. I recognize that the reaction has been more ambivilant than her previous works, and have advocated for a disclaimer being listed after the (sourced and factual) consensus of "generally positive". The reception page should read that the album "recieved generally positive reviews, although the response was much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous work", as this addresses the obvious issues that users have raised as well as reports the consensus as it truly is according to sourced fact. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've approached both parties individually to discuss the issue but agreement has not been achieved.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outlet for more input and mediate between the three users.

Summary of dispute by STATicVapor

Clearly unnecessary, a local consensus would be best for this. Please comment on content not contributors, you seriously have a problem with that Reece. My name has to always be thrown into your responses at least five times. Anyways, Metacritic indicates that the album received 21 mixed reviews and 9 positive reviews, now why in the world would we say it received generally positive reviews, when over twice as many were mixed. I never had a problem with listing it as mixed to positive, but listing it as generally positive is just ridiculous and not adhering to a WP:NPOV. The other source brang up by the Reece, was a cherry picked source that states only 10 of the album's reviews, some of which were positive. But the source did not say it received generally positive reviews, so more WP:OR on his/her part. As I said earlier in that thread on Talk: Artpop; it is not hard to find multiple reliable sources saying it received mixed, mixed, mixed, and mixed reviews that also summarize the album's critical reception. STATic message me! 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IndianBio

Here I am. The thing is that I am myself confused as to why and where this blew up to the epic proportions. Was DRN really necessary? I see that the discussion and the rage is still continuing in the talk page. The thing is that Reece Leonard has some good points, which are being dismised by Static Vapor instead of acknowledging them in a civilized manner and then come into a consensus. Little bit of dirt throwing is going on which needs to stop and for this neither party is ready to give it up. I guess that may be the reason DRN was needed. —Indian:BIO · 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminder to all involved parties

We understand that content disputes can be frustrating and can create intense feelings about other editors however, WP:DRN is a content only forum and does not deal with or consider behavioral issues. For this reason we ask DRN participants to avoid references to other editor's actions or behavior and just stick to the merits of the content under discussion. Please keep this in mind as the case proceeds and thanks for your participation at DRN! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

24 HOUR CLOSING NOTICE: Hi User:Reece Leonard and User:STATicVapor, if User:IndianBio does not show up ASAP then this case will need to be closed due to non-participation of a key member of the dispute. (Note: participation is voluntary and not required) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio has posted above so I am going to open this case for discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Artpop discussion

The case is now open. The locust of the dispute seems to be how to characterize a work by Lady Gaga. Some editors have characterized the work as receiving "generally positive" reviews while others characterize it as "mixed". Is this the dispute in a nutshell? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate is between "mixed to positive" and "generally positive", not "mixed". Other than that, yes. That is correct. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No it is "mixed" and "generally positive", you were right Keithbob. STATic message me! 23:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the record show that STATic has now changed his stance purely because I've repeatedly discredited his arguments and he now operates on a personal vendetta against the sourced consensus I'm arguing for. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate indeed started between "mixed to positive" (which is listed) and generally positive (which is what Reece is advocating). —Indian:BIO · 05:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not true, it used to just say mixed, I do not know where it changed within the last four months. STATic message me! 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As IndianBio just stated, the argument was originally between "Mixed to positive" and positive". STATic has recently changed his stance. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

(→) The situation is getting too dirty at Talk:Artpop#Critical_Reception. If this continues very soon administrators need to intervene. —Indian:BIO · 05:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I've repeatedly tried to keep it clean and professional and always cited sources and argued based on fact, as shown on the talk page. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it died down, rather then mediate the discussion, I would like an admin to close it so we can get over this already. And Reece that is the funniest thing all day, you are the only one the has consistently resorted to harassing and attacking everyone that disagreed with you. STATic message me! 05:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputing content and pointing out that stating you don't like the artist who's page you're editing is obviously an example of bias does not constitute harassment and you know that. You're the one who has called myself and IndianBio children in addition to accusing me of being illiterate, as well as outright refusing to read my arguments because you don't feel like it. You've literally come out and admitted that you didn't read my arguments early on in the debate. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to make my argument clear, here is the consensus that I feel the page should state: "ARTPOP recieved generally positive reviews from music critics, although responses were much more ambivalent in comparison to Gaga's previous works". Here are my sources that support this consensus: DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise. Reece Leonard (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that a consensus for the "mixed" option was actually reached on this issue by 5 of the 6 editors involved (the other being Reece) by 00:11 on 21 November 2013. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's... not even remotely true? As IndianBio just said, the dispute was always between "mixed to positive" and "generally positive"? What do you have to say about the sources listed that disprove the "mixed to positive" camp? Reece Leonard (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Says the person that 97% of the things they state are not remotely true. The commentors at the beginning of the discussion were in consensus of listing it as mixed, and somewhere, someone sneak changed it to mixed to positive. Sources were already provided that support that it received mixed reviews. Not to mention as can be seen by the Metacritic link, it received twice as many mixed reviews as positive reviews. Listing it as positive is just bias and illogical. STATic message me! 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What happened to commenting on content and not contributors? It's okay for you to insult me and not for me to point out that you admitted that you didn't like Lady Gaga, which obviously constitutes bias? Here is a direct quote from yourself from the ARTPOP talk page in which you agreed to the page listing mixed to positive: "I tried to make a compromise, agreeing to listing it as "mixed to positive..."" This was posted on 00:02, 24 February 2014. Please comment on the sources I've provided above that back up the consensus I'm advocating for. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not insulted you at all, stop making wild accusations. Since when do you have to like the subject of every article you edit? I am only going by what the most reliable sources including The Guardian say, which you called a "small publication." That was months later, I did try to make the compromise recently, but of course you rejected it, so why not go with what the original consensus said and list it as mixed. The HuffPost source does not say the album received positive reviews, that is you synthesizing the source and the Metacritic source supports that the album received twice as much mixed reviews. STATic message me! 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Accusing me of lying 97% of the time is absolutely an insult. And do I really need to answer that? If you have a negative view of an artist, that's going to carry over into your edits and it violates the WP:Bias guidelines. When I brought up that glaring issue, you accused me of making "personal attacks" on you. Pointing out bias is not a personal attack. You can't synthesize a single review. Synthesizing is the process of "combin material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from the page you just linked to). Once again, you're misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines. The page originally read as mixed to positive and it has read as such for months. That's not a recent development. Focusing on the number of categorical reviews for Metacritic is overly simplistic; It doesn't tell the whole story. It's also not the approach that Metacritic, the source where this information is coming from, adheres to. Picking and choosing information from a source and ignoring the consensus that it has listed for the album (generally favorable reviews, exactly what I'm arguing for) doesn't make any sense. Even if you were to go by the standard of focusing on the number of reviews in each category (again, an act that Metacritic, the source being cited, does not practice), twelve of the reviews that are listed as "mixed" are literally one percentage point below being listed as entirely positive and cannot simply be passed off as mixed. They consist mostly of 3/5 star or 3 and a half/5 star reviews, otherwise known as positive reviews with reservations. The Huffington Post article says that the album "pretty much had the thumbs up from music critics around the globe", so... ? Again: Comment on the fact that I have sourced multiple publications that state exactly what I'm arguing for. What about the other two? Those say, point blank, that the album received generally positive reviews. You have one source on your side (The Guardian). I have DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise. I've also just found yet another source from YahooMusic that supports what I'm saying ("Most mainstream reviews are at least somewhat positive."). In addition to your very limited amount of sources, you just admitted, for the second time, that you dislike the artist who's page you're attempting to edit. This is an open-shut case of bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Please STOP the personal attacks! We are not here to discuss behavior or motivations. We are discussing content only. If the personal comments continue I will simply close this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Regarding the content:

• Current sentence in the article lead: Artpop received generally mixed to positive reviews from music critics
• Proposal by Reece Leonard: Artpop received generally positive reviews from music critics

Is this an accurate summation of the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the dispute, though I'd like to have the disclaimer "although the responses were much more ambivalent than those for Gaga's previous works" as this addresses the qualms other users have raised about the nature of reviews. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Reece. Let's discuss this proposed change first, then we can see about amending the qualifying phrases that come after. In my experience there is a higher chance of resolution when the items in dispute are broken down into small segments.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Reece cites:

• The Huffington Post article, DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic.

If we're going to start citing small publications, then here: The Southern Digest, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf, Street Insider

STATicVapor says:

• "The HuffPost source does not say the album received positive reviews and the Metacritic source supports that the album received twice as much mixed reviews" and SV cites The Week, The Guardian, Pop Crush, The News, Los Angeles Times, SF Gate, and a more recent The Huffington Post article.

What do others think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@IndianBio:? Reece Leonard (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Any Decent Music? (basically the same thing as Metacritic), lists the album with a 6.0, based on 28 reviews. I'd add that to the "mixed" sources. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A consensus of mixed is neither stated nor suggested on that page and therefore it does not qualify as a source for the mixed argument. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A 6.0 out of 10 result is most definitely Mixed on Any Decent Music. See the "About" page I linked. You can't keep synthesizing sources, Reece. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where that's stated because I just reviewed that entire about page and it says nothing about a score of 60 being mixed. And by the way, Metacritic is a much more widely cited review-conglomerate site that states that it received generally favorable reviews. Are you supporting the use of weighted averages now? Synthesizing is the process of" combin material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is not what I've done. Metacritic says exactly what I'm arguing for, as do all of my other sources. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet Metacritic clearly indicates that it received 21 mixed reviews, and 9 positive reviews, so there has been generally mixed or mixed to positive reviews. Their color coating does not matter when over double more reviews have been mixed. STATic message me! 17:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the argument you keep repeating over and over again, ignoring the fact that you're sourcing Metacritic who came up with a consensus through those compiled reviews of "generally favorable". Metacritic doesn't adhere to your style of interpretation (and... color coating? What?). You can't pick and choose information from one source as that would be synthesizing and is against wikipedia guidelines. They compiled that list and came up with a consensus of generally favorable reviews. Furthermore, 12 of those reviews in the mixed category are literally one percentage point from being listed in the positive category as entirely positive reviews. The reviews have been more ambivalent, but the consensus still came out to generally favorable, exactly what I'm arguing should be listed on the ARTPOP page. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN coordinator's note: Okay, this is enough of this. Here at DRN we do not discuss editors, only edits. Please wholly refrain from discussing one another. Do not discuss, mention, or complain about one another's POV, biases, likes, dislikes, conduct, motives, characteristics, editing patterns or practices, or anything else about one another. If you believe that you have legitimate complaints about another editor's conduct, take them to RFC/U or ANI, but do not discuss them here at all. I'm invoking Misplaced Pages:MEDIATION#Control of mediation to collapse the foregoing discussion. Further discussion of such matters will be deleted without notice. Please feel free to continue the discussion, but limit it to content, not one another. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Closed at the request of both parties who seem to have worked out some steps of progress on their own. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Assassination threats against Barack Obama

Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Consider RFC/U or ANI for conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Urartu TH (talk · contribs)
• Divot (talk · contribs)
• Antelope Hunter (talk · contribs)
• Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have a disagreement with Urartu TH about the inclusion of Human Rights Watch death toll estimates into the infobox. HRW, which conducted a thorough investigation of the tragedy, writes: "While it is widely accepted that 200 Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died". Urartu TH believes that the infobox should contain only the lower estimate of 200, as the higher numbers in his opinion are not realistic. In my opinion, we cannot censor the source like that, as it is not up to us to engage in WP:OR and decide what is and what is not a reliable estimate. I believe that we should stick to whatever HRW says, with proper attribution of citations, in accordance with WP:VERIFY, i.e. the infobox should say "200 - possibly up to 500 - 1,000" in the part that cites HRW. Grandmaster 15:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point here is, that if we include into infobox only the lower estimates of HRW, this would create a false impression that HRW does not consider higher estimates to be plausible. That is certainly not the case. Grandmaster 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talk of the article

How do you think we can help?

By providing opinions

Summary of dispute by Urartu TH

User Grandmaster has been attempting to change the casualties portion of the infobox on the Khojaly massacre article. This user is in dispute with myself, Divot and Antelope Hunter in this matter. We wish to keep the status quo as it represents what has been the consensus for some time. Grandmaster is attempting to add a controversial figure (500-1000 casualties) which is mentioned only ONCE in a footnote on page 24 of (http://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/a/azerbjn/azerbaij94d.pdf). This speculative and highly dubious figure is already noted in the body of the article.

The figure is clearly an offhand comment and its inclusion in the infobox meets neither Misplaced Pages standards of WP:UNDUE nor WP:NPOV. The upper-end figure of 1000 that Grandmaster wishes to include is one that not even the government of Azerbaijan (a biased party in regards to the issue of the article) uses; they themselves claim 613 casualties. The "footnote figure" is found no where else in any document and is merely the speculative musings of one HRW scribe in one single footnote. It should not be given the same weight as casualty figures we know to be true, such as the 161+ casualty or the 200 casualty figures. The article involves a highly controversial and sensitive topic along with articles about all the other massacres during the Karabakh war on both sides.--Urartu TH (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Divot

1. According Azerbaijani government - 613 people
2. Accordin Tom de Waal - 485 people
3. According HRW - 161+ people
4. In the comment HRW wrote "While it is widely accepted that 200 hundred Azeris were murdered, as many as 500-1,000 may have died"

The last comment have a blunder. "200 hundred Azeris" means 20.000 Azeris. Again, 1000 is an obvious exaggeration, no one source use this figure.

So, according Neutral point of view (Balancing aspects) we can use in principle this figure in the topic, but, of course, not in the Infobox, where we must use reliable figures, not dubious speculations, like 20000 or "possibly up to 500 - 1,000" victims. Divot (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Antelope Hunter

As already stated, the number 1000 is speculative and not even the Azerbaijani government claims such a high number. It falls under WP:Due and should be kept out of the article. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ninetoyadome

Khojaly Massacre

Azerbaijan

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• Divot (talk · contribs)
• Hablabar (talk · contribs)
• Roses&guns (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created the "Name of Azerbaijan" section in the article Azerbaijan, where the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" is described. Here we can see a lot of sources claiming that the term "Azerbaijan" was used also for the lands on the north side of Aras river. In the map "Russia at the Caucasus" we can see it very well. I think in this section we can use this map which illustrates this fact very well.

But user Divot claims that the map is wrong, but there are no any sources saying that. User Hablabar went further and wants to delete the whole section. He sees there some WP:CHERRY and some propaganda. But I don't see here any cherry and propaganda. The section is about the usage of the term "Azerbaijan" in the region in the different periods of history and is based on several reliable sources (e.g. Iranica). I claim the the deleting of this section by Hablabar is just vandalism and needs some administrative actions against him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like an outsider to judge matters from the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages policies and conventions: are separate articles warranted, or not? The conclusion of mediator will stop edit warring on this issue.

Summary of dispute by Divot

The map is wrong, Details on TP Moreover, I asked a well-known historian Bournoutian, his answer: "The map is wrong. The word Azerbijan is written in another font and script--compare it to Georgia. It is impossible to put Erevan and Lake Sevan in the so-called Azerbijan in 1847-- since it was until 1840 the Armenian Province and after that the Erevan Guberniia."

There are a lot of maps of the region. I don't understand why we need to use obviously wrong map. Divot (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hablabar

Summary of dispute by Roses&guns

Talk:Azerbaijan discussion

Divot, the map isn't wrong. Bournutians words are not published in reliable source. And his position (if these words really belongs him) is unlogical. How can he say that the region on the north of Aras during Russian Empire wasn't called "Azerbaijan" if we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan" (which was recently removed by vandals). In this section we can see a large amount of sources showing that the term "Azerbaijan" was used for the lands on the north of Aras. The map is a good illustration for this. I still don't understand what do you have against this map in the section about the name of Azerbaijan (not ethymology). Also I didn't see any new logical arguments from you. --Interfase (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Bournutians words are not published in reliable source" of course, but only if we use his words in the topic. According Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources :"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

"we could see that it was in the section "Name of Azerbaijan"" - in that section we can read "Under Emperor Alexander III the term "Azerbaijan" gradually became used to Baku and Yelisavetpol province by European scientists and journalists". Alexander III (1881 - 1894), the map dated by 1847. So, Bournutian is quite right.

As we see, region Azerbailan is a part of Russian Empire, but not Persia. It's nonsense, because in 19th century this name means region in Persia and sometimes (Safavid's epoch, after 1880-x) for Iranian Azerbaijan and modern Azerbaijan, but never only for modern Azerbaijan. Divot (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"but never only for modern Azerbaijan" - statement without any sources. Bournutian is not right. The map shows the usage of map in the specific period of history. It shouldn't have exactly the same date which is shown in the sources. This is an absurd. We can see that the term was used for the lands on the north of Aras during the period of Russian Empire. We can see the sources saying that the term was used such. So stop give absurd arguments. --Interfase (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: Discussion should cease — any more is past the "keep discussion to a minimum" point — and only take place on the article talk page until the two remaining listed editors make their opening statements and until a volunteer opens the case for discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rosen Method_Bodywork

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Etolpygo (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• Vzaak (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a dispute about whether sources cited by user Etolpygo constitute reliable sources of information. Users Alexbrn and Vzaak keep repeatedly deleting them even though they are articles published in peer-reviewed journals. This has been discussed on the Talk page to no avail. Alexbrn, in particular, posits that Etolpygo is making medical claims, which have to be substantiated more thoroughly. Etolpygo is not making any such claims.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

rephrased and reworded sources. talked on the talk page as well as on the relevant users' pages.

How do you think we can help?

provide third opinion on whether sources cited by Etolpygo are reliable sources of information

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Summary of dispute by Vzaak

Rosen Method_Bodywork discussion

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