Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 18 February 2013

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.

La Luz del Mundo

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fordx12 (talk · contribs)
• RidjalA (talk · contribs)
• Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)
• WikiNuevo (talk · contribs)
• Darkwind (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

RidjalA believes that content in the Controversy section and the Discrimination section is not relevant or shouldn't be included. Such information provides other POV's to the accusations listed in the "Rape accusations" subsection of the article. He also wishes to include a source that has been declared unreliable or unusable by an RfC located here . A past RfC located here stated that the controversy section should be removed, or it should be merged with the Discrimination section and turned into a "Public image" section.

A past editor who started a dispute between Wikinuevo and Ajaxfiore brought about this discussion which has routes in a past dispute discussed in this noticeboard

RidjalA and Ajaxfiore do not agree on the location of the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. One believes it to belong in the controversy section, another believes it to belong in another section as "Scrutiny." This is based on whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection is a "controversy."

I believe that the discrimination section should be refined for easier reading, and it does not have undue weight. All content described here is relevant and should be included in the rape accusation section, and that the controversy section should be changed as stated in the RfC. I believe that if a Public Image section is made, all sections in question would belong there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked RidjalA on his talk page to refrain from discussing perepheral issues such as accusations against me and another of being part of a conspiracy and concentrate on the content here and his. The talk page, and its archives, is filled with ongoing discussions on the subject. I do not believe that we are able to respect each other's opinions and thus this DRN would help alleviate that issue.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide a fresh viewpoint by helping us consider the content in question. Is Silver Wolf Ranch section a controversy? Is the paragraph RidjalA mentioned irrelevant with the rape accusations subsection of the article? Is the Discrimination section in violation of any wiki policy? How should editing in these areas progress? How should we react in light of past RfC's mentioned here?

Your opinions, input, and mediation will help us respect a consensus as opposed to accusing each other.

Opening comments by RidjalA

Firstly, I'd like to thank you (Fordx12 and/or whoever else got this started) for issuing this resolution. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

The book in question is found at academic libraries like this one, so I don't know where they're getting the notion that this book is not a valid source nor that it was never published. Further, its findings are backed up by the L.A. Times. I'd like to point out that Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have gone through suspiciously exhaustive lengths at discrediting this author (an initial rfc created by these two guys a few months back resulted in them being called out for the great lengths they've taken this here). Perhaps they should be a little more careful if they don't want to come off as being paid editors on behalf of La Luz del Mundo.

For the past year now, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have in an Orwellian fashion attempted to silence me for procluding their progress in ridding the article of its data and sources that bring to light numerous controversies. Certainly, like all other religious articles with their respective controversy sections, we have ensured that the information is balanced. So I don't agree that we should do away with this religion's controversy section.

As for the rfc to merge the controversy section with another section (or to do away with it altogether), no solid consensus was ever established; opinions were all over the place, and I'm not comfortable with Fordx12's hasty proclamation here that we should proceed to do away with the controversy section anyway.

And whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy belongs in the controversy section has been established by an uninvolved 3o after Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore first attempted to remove that section. Here, that 3o helped us establish that there exists a "genuine controversy" surrounding Silver Wolf Ranch and that it should suffice for it to stay.

Finally, the antithesis to the controversy section that these guys created (the "Discrimination" section) is loosely based on quarrels between locals and church members following a political disagreement, and not about religious-based discrimination like the section tries to convey. There's undue weight there in my opinion. Same goes for this chunk of info here.

Respectfully yours, RidjalA (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ajaxfiore

There's no need to discuss matters that have already been solved by RfCs such as the reliability of Jorge Erdely as a source (by the way, the source RidjalA mentions was not the source in question). The content that RidjalA wants to remove is relevant, and should remain. In response to RidjalA's accusations, I have never attempted to remove the Silver Wolf Ranch or the Controversy section, and have in fact expanded it.

Note: I have opened a case at AN/I regarding the conduct of RidjalA. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by WikiNuevo

Opening comments by Darkwind

I am only tangentially involved; WikiNuevo (t c) posted on my talk page requesting me to look into the situation on the page, specifically regarding his contributions being reverted. I'm not sure why he reached out directly to me -- possibly he saw an administrative action I took at AIV or something. I saw that both he and Ajaxfiore (t c) had violated 3RR, and that neither user's edits were clear vandalism, so as an uninvolved admin, I blocked both for 24 hours as a consequence. I took no position on the content dispute, and still have no position regarding that (and for that reason, I am not likely to participate further in this filing). —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo discussion

• I will take a look at this tomorrow night. If any other volunteer wants to take a look too at any given time before I do, s/he is welcomed to do so. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I have read a bit. I will read another bit before asking some questions. — ΛΧΣ 14:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I think I can start this tomorrow. Sorry for the wait. — ΛΧΣ 06:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note For personal purposes, I won't be able to help solving this DRN case anymore. I offer my most sincere apologies and leave the thread open for any other volunteer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I am new to WP:DRN so while I am acting as a volunteer, my suggestions and input should also probably be taken with a grain of salt, and I would even go so far as to say that minimal or no action should be taken on the part of the involved parties based solely on my reading of the issue -- please at least allow an opportunity for a more experienced volunteer to weigh in.

I can say that there are a few things that immediately jump out at me. First among these is the rhetoric employed by RidjalA, which in many cases seems quite clearly to be intended as personal attacks, and when not ignored, it is quite reasonably, and civilly, pointed out by those attacked. At minimum, I would suggest that RidjalA should ratchet down the rhetoric ("Orwellian") and redouble their efforts to assume good faith.

The approach of a separate criticism section in general seems to be straightforwardly discouraged by WP:CRIT.

It is difficult to fully dig into the content dispute here, as it appears complex, with a long history. I will likely need more time to dig in before making content-based suggestions.

Again, while keeping in mind the fact that I am a noob, I do feel like a user conduct RfC might be a more appropriate venue for this ongoing dispute; progress on the content issue appears to me (on this cursory reading) to be prevented by the behavior I have described. Again, I may have more to say in a day or two. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you input UseTheCommandLine. An RfC/U was opened a while ago but it received little attention. The case at AN/I also received little attention and was archived. Leaving user conduct aside, the content disputes are the following: (I think)

• What to do with the Controversy section. RidjalA wants to keep it as is.
• The use of a dubious, sensational source in the article. Most editors agreed it shouldn't be used, while RidjalA keeps reintroducing it.
• RidjalA wants to remove a chunk of sourced information in the article. This information consists of POVs regarding sexual abuse accusations. The first POV was introduced long ago by Maunus, RidjalA has since then tried to remove this.
• The Silver Wolf Ranch section, which RidjalA introduced here. RidjalA's extremely biased addition was eventually modified to this. However RidjalA keeps trying to make it seem as though the ranch was secretly purchased using church money and is being used for tax evasion purposes. RidjalA believes the church leader "accumulates private wealth and lives lavishly", and his lifestyle is "paid for by his poor (figuratively and literally) followers' offerings." The church leader is therefore "pocketing the profits instead of properly distributing all of the wealth like Jesus would have done."

Take your time, no need to rush when Valentine's Day is around the corner. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA, is this an accurate characterization, in your view, of the subjects at issue here?

I realize this is somewhat of a tangent but I do think it is applicable. I suspect one of the reasons the RfC/U did not get any volunteer attention was because of its timing. Setting that aside, another reason I think I can safely say it did not get attention is because of its length. In the RfC/U guidelines, it does suggest that a complete and thorough accounting of every infraction is not necessary, and to focus on the most substantial issues. The length, of both the RfC/U and the current DRN issue, serve to dissuade editors with limited time from stepping in, because of the requisite amount of reading and backstory.

Bringing that around to the current content disputes, it seems like there is a lot to be worked through. I would venture a guess that part of this is because issues have accumulated over time without being resolved, and now there are many issues to deal with, battle lines have been drawn.

So I guess my question, to both RidjalA and Ajaxfiore (and anyone else involved in this dispute who wants to chime in) is:

Which one of these is most important to address now? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment What is most important right now is doing what both RfC´s in the current talk page have decided: remove the questionable source and its content and to either remove the controversy section or converting it into a "public image" type section. I just described the RfC´s. I am not ready to provide my opinion on what exactly what to do untill others state what they´d wish to do. Fordx12 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine I realize that length was an issue as well, I found this essay WP:TL;DR helpful. I now realize that by enumerating every infraction, it seemed like an overreaction. Anyway, I agree with Fordx12 that we should do as the RfCs say. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the wording of the Silver Wolf Ranch section to that, RidjalA seems reluctant to allow his accusations to be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on RidjalA's talk page, and mentioned that there is an open dispute here, and that his input would be appreciated. Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to say we should limit discussion to the most important issues, and not the Silver Wolf Ranch for the moment. Too many issues at once makes things hard to keep track of.

To recap, the RfCs are:

• RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section?
• RfC: Is Revista Academica a reliable source?

Since these are two separate issues, I think it's important to ask, which of these is most important to address now?

Alright, sorry about that. Actually the second RfC is Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?, although Jorge Erdely also contributes to the Revista Académica. I personally believe this is the most important at the moment. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before we move on, I'm hoping to clear some things up. I'm short on time until tomorrow evening or so, so I'll give just a brief summary of what I think needds to be done or not done.

First, let me reiterate that opinions on that RfC to consolidate the Controversy section resulted in mixed opinions. So no, it should not be merged or removed for the lack of strong support. Also, although having a controversy section is somewhat discouraged, in general articles on religion seem to be exceptions to that guideline (consider Scientology; in fact, Scientology's controversy section is much closer towards the beginning of that article).

All I ask is for Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 to refrain from removing sourced information and replacing it with other sourced information that is less relevant to the topic like so. It's that simple. These edit patterns are the basis of our problems. I know that some of this data may seem controversial (sexual abuse, private wealth, etc) to anyone who belongs to that sect, but it is nonetheless data that was reserched by journalists and actuated by the press and other publishers.

I also want to point out that I'm not the only one who reserves pretty strong suspicious about Ajaxfiore's attempts at removing Erdely as a source. You should take a second to read the response on that RfC that Ajaxfiore issued against me. I hope this helps dispel the presumption that the request was closed due to poor timing. Best, RidjalA (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA I think it is best to look at the whole discussion at AN/I not a single comment (without evidence) by an editor. One could also make the argument that your attempt to reintroduce Erdely and replace reliable sources with Erdely's false claims seems suspicious. You can accuse me of being a member of the religious organization, I can accuse you of being a member of Erdely's cult. Personal attacks will get us nowhere. Although editors provided different opinions, most editors agreed that the controversy section should not remain as is. Furthermore poor quality articles such as the Scientology article should not be used as a model for this article, but instead we should use good quality articles such as the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

As for the RfC on the reliability of Jorge Erdely, you have been the lone dissenting voice and your only arguments have been unfounded accusations such as "Ajaxfiore is a member of the church", "Ajaxfiore's actions are suspicious", "Ajaxfiore this, Ajaxfiore that." Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• RidjalA, if you are unable or unwilling to refrain from personal attacks, veiled though they might be, then I fear that we will be unable to deal with the legitimate content dispute(s). Unfortunately, WP:DRN does not handle conduct disputes, so we would be unable to proceed here. I would also like to urge everyone involved here not to respond to personal attacks in any way. Please trust that they will be seen and noted, even if they are not acknowledged directly.
• Would it be possible for everyone involved in this dispute to refrain from editing the La Luz del Mundo page for at least 48 hours, or until this dispute is settled? I think that is a reasonable starting point. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can be childish at times. I had already suggested that we refrain from editing the article in the talk page, but resumed editing when RidjalA did. I shall now stop editing until the DRN case closes. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I will be closing this discussion in 24 hours unless it receives additional comment from users other than Ajaxfiore. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've stated my opinion that the sources are valid, I don't know what else to say. The fact that journalists published about possible corruption in that church's leadership does not make them "sensationalist" reporters (in fact this is a journalist's duty). The sources in question are L.A. Times, Revista Academica, San Antonio News, et al; we're not talking about your local supermarket tabloid magazines here. I ask that we clarify that we may continue using these sources so that those few users sympathetic to the church could cease from hampering with the information contained therein. Cheers, RidjalA (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• You forgot to include Jorge Erdely Graham in that list. As far as know, no editor has questioned the Los Angeles Times. Could you be a bit more specific? What sources fall under et al.? Are you referring to established scholars like Dormady, De la Torre, and Fortuny or to the anti LLDM blogs and websites you have introduced? As for the San Antonio Express News, various editors have expressed concerns regarding it. I'm fine with what TheBlueCanoe suggested here.

In order to move forward with this DRN case, it would be best if you responded to the questions posed by UseTheCommandLine. Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• BlueCanoe made that suggestion so that we not use quotations to call lldm followers minions, as one source referred to them. And I'm sorry, but "Blogs"? What blogs?

So my response to the issues at hand: Ajaxfiore has inexhaustibly tried to remove the entire controversy section for almost over a year now(and hence the long history on this sole issue), and I am still resolute in my response. For as long as sources exist that detail the existence of notable controversies surrounding that sect (private wealth, sex abuse scandals, scrutiny for potential of mass suicide), it should suffice for them to stay on wikipedia. RidjalA (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion at this point is that because Erdely's allegations have been written about (I read spanish poquito y mal, so I have not evaluated non-English sources) by others in the mass media, specifically the LA times article, they are notable as allegations and deserve inclusion in the article. However, the current section seems to me to be a straightforward example of placing undue weight on the allegations, and cites the LA times article 12 times in the quite large criticism section (once under "Discrimination" and 11 times in "Controversy"). The LA Times article is one of the most frequently cited references in the article.

I believe that the controversy section, even if it remains a separate section (and I think it should actually be integrated into other sections eventually, per WP:CRITICISM), should be reduced in size by at least 50%. Readers can check the LA Times article if they feel like it; I would be comfortable with a single three or four sentence paragraph for a controversy section, and feel like this is both achievable, and that a controversy section of this size would be much more readily integrated into the rest of the article. There is no need to repeat every claim in the LA Times article, and the size of it in my opinion makes it read like less of a summation with link than a paraphrase and potential copyvio. There clearly exists the same danger with the Silver Wolf Ranch section.

The bottom line here, for me, is that all involved parties, if they agree that this is a reasonable goal, must be willing to let bygones be bygones. I continue to be uncomfortable with RidjalA's accusations, even after this kind of uncivil behavior is pointed out repeatedly, and feel like the hostile environment this creates is a serious danger to further progress (see WP:MASTODONS).

I would remind everyone that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary, and if any parties are unwilling to engage this process civilly and in good faith please let me know; I would rather not waste my time and just close this dispute if that's the case.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to this; it seems like a good idea. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies RidjalA, I got confused between you and an anon who added blogs. Nonetheless, you did add an anti lldm site and allowed the blogs to stay. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your last sentence is all that productive either, you may want to consider striking it. Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, or even pointing them out. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh. In this case, the past is the enemy of progress on this article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
• Lowkeyvision (talk · contribs)
• Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs)
• Wasifwasif (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the word "allegedly" be used in the lead sentence to define the term "saffron terror"?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the matter in both edit summaries and on the talk page (see Talk:Saffron terror#The word alleged.

How do you think we can help?

At the moment, we seem to be at an impasse on the talk page, because myself and Ratnakar.kulkarni believe that "alleged" is actually a part of the definition of the term, while Lowkeyvision and Wasif think that it's impossible for the word to appear in a definition, and Lowkeyvision has further argued that WP:ALLEGED applies.

Opening comments by Lowkeyvision

1) Is a convicted criminal, someone who has allegedly broke the law? Is an Islamic Terrorist, someone who allegedly follows Islam? Is someone who is a Christian Fanatic, a fanatic who is allegedly Christian? Saffron is the color of the organizations that proclaim Hindu Nationalism(RSS and BJP). The phrase "Saffron Terrorism" is no different than saying "Hindu Nationalist Terrorism"- and that is why the phrase was coined.

2) I would like to cite WP:ALLEGED to point out that using the word “alleged” places doubt on the credibility of a statement and can introduce bias. This bias leads to a violation of the Second Pillar: Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

3) The term “Saffron Terror” can get misused for political reasons similar to the terms "Islamic Terrorism", "State Terrorism" and "Christian Fundamentalist". However, changing the definitions of any of these phrases to include the word "allegedly" would mislead people by introducing bias.

"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired allegedly by Hindu nationalism" Versus "Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired by Hindu nationalism"

These are the choices. We hope you will side with the second choice.

Thank You .

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni

The term of saffron terror became famous after few people(their religion was Hinduism) were arrested in connection with some terror incidents. Now these people have allegedly conducted these terror attacks. There has been no trial in these cases yet nor any judgments. So these people are not convicted criminals, they have allegedly committed some crime and because nothing is proved yet we just cannot say that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. When there is any conviction in these cases you can remove the word alleged but till then we cannot write for sure whether they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or something else.--sarvajna (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Wasifwasif

1. According to oxford dictionary, The word allegation means something which has no proof or certainly which is not proven.
2. So definition of a term containing the word allegedely implies the definition itself having no proof which logically cannot be correct.
3. There cannot be a definition of term without any proof.
4. A person can be an alleged saffron terrorist, but saffron terrorism cannot be alleged on itself.
5. If none of the alleged & arrested Saffron terrorists are convicted, then those people can be free from allegations but the term Saffron terrorism cannot be allged or freed from allegation since there is no case pending if the term is alleged or not but only on people.

Wasif (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror discussion

As all parties have presented their opening statements I have uncollapsed the early discussion as promised. I have moved User:Ratnakar.kulkarni's comment to below this message to aid the flow of discussion. Cabe6403 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A small reply to what Lowkeyvision stated in his statement, he uses WP:ALLEGED to defend his statement. It makes no sense at all. If you look at that page it is mentioned Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes (bolding mine). This is exactly what I am saying, the people accused of commiting this crime of saffron terror are people on trail for crimes (although the trial has not yet begun). If we really want NPOV we should use allegedly in the statement .--sarvajna (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to distinguish between the individuals alleged to have been involved in Saffron Terrorism and the definition of the term itself. Currently, is there any WP:RS citation to show that it was "inspired by Hindu Nationalism" or is this speculative on the part of the media? Cabe6403 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that there would be any RS to show that the acts were "inspired by Hindu nationalism" because those acts are supposed to be just allegation against people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. No one can be sure whether the acts were inspired by Hindu nationalism or not because there is still a doubt about who really commited those crimes/ what inspired them to commit those crimes (not sure whether my comment was very clear or not). --sarvajna (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If people are part of a Hindu Nationalist organisation then surely any act they do to further their cause or on behalf of the organisation is 'inspired' by Hindu Nationalism? If it wasn't, why are they involved in a Hindu Nationalist organisation in the first place? Cabe6403 09:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Take for example a person X is involved in a Hindu nationalist organization and he kills other person Y over some domestic dispute will you say that the person X was inspired by Hindu nationalism to kill person Y? Also who said that they commited those crimes to further the cause of Hindu nationalism(assuming that the cause of Hindu Nationalism is to spread terror) and who said that these people acted on behalf of their organization? If I work for microsoft and hacks you email account wil you claim that I hacked it on behalf of microsoft, you cannot claim that unless any judgment is passed in that case. --sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also just to reiterate, these terror attacks were allegedly carried out by people associated with Hindu nationalist organization and we can only speculate that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism but we cannot be sure hence the pharse "allegedly inspired by Hindu nationalism" is required. --sarvajna (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A rapist is NOT someone who ALLEGEDLY violated a person sexually. We are talking about the definition of the word, not if someone is convicted of it or not. Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here. Saffron is the color associated with Right-Wing Hindu Nationalist organizations. Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired by Hindu nationalism (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

I will answer in your own words, a person undergoing a trail for rape is someone who allegedly violated someone sexually, that is what all the case of Saffron terror is, yes saffron is the color of right wing Hindu Nationalist organizations apart from being a color in the Indian flag, a color in the flag of congress party's flag. But let me tell you none of the Hindu nationalist organizations are either banned or have any case against them for indulging in terror activities. There would be no such thing called as right wing inspired terrorism till something is proven in the court of law. Do not take the burden of passing any judgement here. You say Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here. I want you to read it again. If you want to define a term on your own, you are free to make it on your blog not on wikipedia.--sarvajna (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reading the two sentences, I'd say go with the second one. The key here is that the term "Saffron terror" is used only in conjunction with "Hindu terrorism", otherwise it is meaningless. It matters not whether there actually have been proven acts of saffron terror or even any such acts at all. Or, for that matter, whether person X who committed an act of terrorism was inspired by Hindu nationalism or not. What else can saffron terror mean except for acts of terrorism by hindu nationalists? BTW, I also suggest dropping the "in India". It is out of place in the sentence and quite unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RP, please don't be so careless while making statements like The key here is that the term "Saffron terror" is used only in conjunction with "Hindu terrorism", otherwise it is meaningless. What really is Hindu Terrorism now,can you give me some examples of Hindu terrorists? something new that you want to define?. You ask What else can saffron terror mean except for acts of terrorism by hindu nationalists well I do not know till some proper authority tell that its the terror acts of people inspired by Hindu Nationalism.--sarvajna (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RK, what I'm saying is that using the term "alleged" when defining saffron terrorism doesn't make sense because the term itself is synonymous with hindu nationalism. The article can easily go on to say that there have been on proven acts of saffron terrorism, or to provide sources that say that its existence is a myth, or that whether or not there have been acts of saffron terrorism is controversial (all of which I can accept) but to say that saffron terrorism is "allegedly" inspired by hindu nationalism defies logic. I ask again, if it did exist then what else would it be inspired by? regentspark (comment) 19:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading all this, what I understand is that certain terrorist acts are alleged to have been inspired by Hindu Nationalism. So the question is:

• does Saffron Terror mean these particular acts of terrorism,

or

• does Saffron Terror mean terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism?

In the former case, Saffron terror is alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism, and in the latter, these acts are alleged to be Saffron Terror. There certainly is an 'alleged', but it could be in one of two places, and the difference is crucial. CarrieVS (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this statement: "A rapist is NOT someone who ALLEGEDLY violated a person sexually. We are talking about the definition of the word, not if someone is convicted of it or not. Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here." by User:Lowkeyvision hits the nail on the head tbh. The idea that you can be an alleged rapist but rape itself an 'alleg-able' thing as, by definition, it has to happen to be itself. In the same sense, Saffron terror is x and people can be allegedly, Saffron Terrorists. Cabe6403 21:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Saffron terror is terrorism conducted by people motivated by Hindu Nationalism but someone who commits an actual act of terror may be "alleged" to be a saffron terrorist. That's a fairly clear distinction. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user regentspark in dropping "in India" from sentence (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

We all know what rape is,we can give examples of rape. So Cabe your statement about rape makes sense. But we cannot give examples of acts of saffron terrorists or saffron terror. It would be more complex to define. you see we do not have proper sources which say that these alleged people were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or not. Its just been deduced because these people had some association with Hindu Nationalist Organizations. Would it be correct on our part to write these assumptions as facts --sarvajna (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's not to do with whether they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or not, it they were then they can be called Saffron Terrorists, until then they are 'alleged' Saffron Terrorists. I can state that someone in an alleged islamic terrorist but not that an islamic terrorist is someone alleged to follow extremist islamic ideas because that is the definition of the term islamic terrorist to begin with. I think this is a very similar situation, the term 'Saffron Terror' is used to refer to terrorist acts in the name of Hindu Nationalism. Whether people have committed such acts in the name of Hindu Nationalism or not is why they are alleged to be Saffron Terrorists. Cabe6403 08:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I think its very premature and wrong to compare Saffron terror and Islamic terror.The supposed objectives of Islamic terrorism and Saffron terrorism are different.Islamic terrorists many times use religious justifications for their acts, saffron terrorists have not used any Hindu nationalistic justifications (because there are none as far as the law goes) Looks like saffron terror has more to do with Anti-Muslim mentality than pro-Hindu mentality. Unlike incidents of Islamic terrorism which have certainly been associated with some Islamic terrorist organization by the various courts no terror incidents have been linked to any Hindu Nationalist organizations by any court of law anywhere. So as of now Saffron terror would be somekind of mythical term. We should use "allegede" when something is not proved beyond doubt. Also before we try to define something we would need a proper RS to say that "yes saffron terrorists were inspired by Hindu nationalism". --sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that's all true, but you don't address the question. What is meant by the term Saffron Terror? If Saffron Terror means terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism, then it's not alleged to be inspired by it, it just is - even if that means there are no proven Saffron Terorists, only alleged ones. Look at these two sentences:

• Saffron Terror is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism; are alleged to have been Saffron Terror.
• Saffron Terror is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism; are examples of Saffron Terror.

Do you see the difference? Neither of them claim that anyone has been proven to have committed a terrorist act inspired by Hindu Nationalism, but they use different definitions of Saffron Terror. CarrieVS (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India" is what is present in the first line of the article and that would be my definition. No inspiration or alleged inspiration. Your first definition is what the dispute is all about. The second part of your second definition would be wrong as there are no proven cases to cite as examples. If you look at the article of Saffron Terror there are two sources for the statement "inspired by Hindu Nationalism". One link is not working now, I guess it was archived and the second link comes almost very closely to say that the incidents were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. IMO we should either remove the phrase "inspired by Hindu Nationalism" or lets add alleged. This is a very new term and would evolve as time goes by after the investigations are over and court cases are cleared.--sarvajna (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are these people whose conviction will determine the meaning of the word? You are making a claim that the definition of a word can change based on whether someone is convicted of it or not, something everyone on this board(and the rules of logic) disagrees with. Explanation of sarvajna's argument is if A≠B THEN A≠A, which violates the rules of logic. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

We have been discussing on this thread of so long, you ask me who are these people, well because you do not seem to understand simple things let me tell you these people are the accused in various terror attacks like Malegaon blast etc. I did not make any such nonsense logic.--sarvajna (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and rephrase my point; my apologies if it wasn't clear.

You, sarvajna, have been saying (to my understanding) that we mustn't say that Saffron Terror is inspired by Hindu Nationalism because the people accused of it have not been convicted and so there is no proof that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism.

The point I (and, I believe, most of the others here) was trying to make is that that argument only makes sense if the particular terrorist acts to which you were referring are the definition of Saffron Terror. But as far as I can see, no-one else is using that definition, and judging by your last comment ("...there are no proven cases to cite as examples") neither are you.

Assuming that the term has its own definition and is not defined by a particular act, then the fact that people are only accused of it and not convicted has no bearing on the definition of Saffron Terror. If Saffron Terror is defined to be right-wing terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism, then it is that, regardless of what may or may not have inspired any particular alleged terrorists. If Saffron Terror is defined to be right-wing terrorism in India, then said inspiration still has no bearing on the definition; if certain acts of (alleged or otherwise) ST are alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism that does not make all ST alleged to be inspired by it.

So we should not be saying that Saffron Terror is alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism. Either we should say that it is inspired by it (if we have a reliable source for that statement; I make no comment on the current sources for the statement) or we should not say that it is, alleged or otherwise. CarrieVS (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS, thanks for you explanation.I appreciate it. Just wanted to inform you that this term is mainly used by politicians from Congress party which is principally opposed to Hindu Nationalist organizations. The only reason why this term became notable is because of those politicians using it for some acts of terror allegedly carried out by people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. I would not have any problem if the reliable sources say that Hindu Nationalism is the inspiration behind Saffron terror, I hope the comments by the politicians would not be takes as RS to define the term or we can attribute that to those politicians. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand what point you are making there. Are you saying that since it became notable because of certain incidents, those incidents do define the term? If so, I must disagree. (I am also not making any comment about whether Saffron Terror is or isn't inspired by Hindu Nationalism. I'm only saying that it is one of the two, as opposed to "alleged to be".) CarrieVS (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not making any such comments, I just wanted to give you some background story. The term was born out of political interests(this is a personal opinion) --sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Well, thanks for the information, but let's stay on topic. Do you still think we should say "alleged", or do you agree that "Either we should say that it is inspired by ... or we should not say that it is, alleged or otherwise"? CarrieVS (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that explicitly say that saffron terror is inspired by Hindu Nationalism lets include it or else we can just remove the whole inspiration stuff from the definition and just write "Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India". --sarvajna (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do Tamil Hindus involved in violence in Sri Lanka qualify as saffron terrorists? If not is there one Hindu convicted of causing a terrorist act related death? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not one example so far? The whole storm is it a canard? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some articles context CarrieVS. Your help is much appreciated.

“A brand of terror is rapidly unfolding, giving rise to a highly dangerous label: 'Hindu terrorism'. It is being attributed to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, a powerful right-wing organization that espouses fierce cultural nationalism built around Hindu values.” article called 'Why we must call it saffron terror and nothing else' from Blog from major newspaper Hindustan Times http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-muslim/2010/07/18/why-we-must-call-it-saffron-terror-and-nothing-else/

''“Saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism" - Economic Times of India http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/news/27614770_1_saffron-terror-terror-incidents-bomb-blasts

“The colour saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism in India, and some right-wing groups have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country.” http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/158791/reftab/73/Default.aspx

As stated earlier, this appears to be use of false logic. Sincere thank you to those volunteering their times to read this information. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

I dont think anyone can convince him. In a similar posting on a talk page he claimed that he doesn't care what college textbooks say about a topic because he knows better (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Editor_indulging_in_WP:SYNTH). At that point I gave up in trying to explain him things. *sigh* (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, note that 1. This is not the place to discuss my behavior and 2. Stop lying, I said that I don't care what the title of the book is or what the title of the section is, I just want to read the text present in the chapter and then decided.--sarvajna (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about another definition "Saffron Terror is a phrase currently used to describe the acts of terror allegedly carried out by the people associated with right-wing/Hindu Nationalist(anything would be fine) organizations". We can put a note saying that the term allegedly is used because no judgement has been passed yet and right-wing groups haveen been suspected of involvement in these acts. This definition can be very much supported by sources.--sarvajna (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Just a couple of reminders:

• Stay on topic (i). There's no need to post background information about Saffron Terror in this thread. I'm sure it was only posted to be helpful, but anyone wanting background information can find it themselves, or they will ask for it.
• Stay on topic (ii). Let's keep this about this dispute and not bring up disputes on other articles.
• Discuss content not conduct. I realise that sometimes it can be difficult to separate the two, but there is a difference between commenting about the edits someone made and about someone making edits. We need to do our best to stick with the former. There are other, more appropriate noticeboards for user conduct issues.
• This is voluntary. If anyone has given up or thinks there's no point trying any more to come to an agreement, then they don't have to stay. CarrieVS (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how Saffron Terror is defined. Whatever we decide that it means, we need reliable sources that support it. Frankly, I'm not convinced that any of the sources cited in the lead paragraph (that is, the ones I can see. One seems to be broken, though I think the issue might be that a subscription is required) or the 'Usage' section of the article clearly support any definition. It certainly looks to me like the term is generally being used to mean terrorism connected with Hinduism and/or Hindu nationalist organisations - and that anything that's only alleged to be so would only be alleged Saffron Terror - but that's only a general impression and I don't think I can pick out bits from any combination of sources that add up to clearly showing that it means that, or anything else.

I suggest that:

• those who want to say that "Saffron Terror is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism" list the source(s) that support that claim below this comment
• and those who want to say that "Saffron Terror is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism" do the same with the source(s) that support that claim,
• then we can discuss whatever sources are produced, and if we can't find reliable sources that can be agreed to support either claim we don't say either. CarrieVS (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good question CarrieVS, the responses will be interesting to see. Frankly, after looking at the article and the sources listed in it, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the right dispute in the first place. We should be asking whether the term is a real one or a wiki invented neologism. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm not asking that is because it survived a nomination for deletion largely to do with that five years ago (not to mention some discussion on the talk page about nominating it for speedy deletion two years ago), and it can hardly have become more of a neologism. CarrieVS (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those. Your focus on the question at hand is probably the right course. (Amazing that anyone could think a discussion that starts with this can ever be successful!) --regentspark (comment) 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I started this thing, and bloody well went and forgot about it (I do that a lot with noticeboards). After reading through the commentary above, I think that I'm actually being swayed by the idea that the "definition" doesn't need the word allegedly. Rather, what we probably need to do is tighten up the later prose, adding explicit clarification, assuming we can source it, that much of what has been labeled "saffron terror" was, in fact, not saffron terror (i.e., not Hindu-nationalist-inspired terrorism). Nonetheless, the exercise suggested of looking at sources for a solid definition is a worthwhile one; I'll try to see what I can find in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply to the "there cannot be a definition of term without any proof" argument. Perhaps it would be better if it said "hypothesised" instead of "alleged". See the article on N rays. A phenomenon, such as saffron terrorism or N rays, may be put forward as a hypothesis. Its existence may be widely believed by experts. In the case of N rays, the phenomenon was subsequently discovered to not exist.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources that I have seen have only specified that the accussed in those terror cases present in the article were associated with Hindu Nationalist organization. I do not see sources claiming that these people were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. --sarvajna (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What we need are sources telling us what Saffron Terror is. When we can agree on the definition of the term, then we will be able to work out whether any of it has actually happened, or has just been alleged or hypothesised to have happened. We don't need to prove that an example exists to have a definition of the term. On the other hand, a term that meant allegedly Hindu-inspired terrorism wouldn't be any kind of contradiction - I'm not saying that Saffron Terror does mean that or that it doesn't (that's what we need to agree on), but it would be a perfectly valid definition.

We need something that tells us what the term Saffron Terror means, not just information about some examples or possible examples. As an analogy, there is a van outside my window, and it's blue. But I can't say, on that basis, that vans are blue.

And we mustn't fall into the trap of deciding what we think Saffron Terror ought to mean. We're not inventing the term, we're describing it, so, sources, please. CarrieVS (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism"

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/158791/reftab/73/Default.aspx <--I dont think it gets any clearer than this. It defines why the word saffaron is used in the term Saffron terror. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)).

1) "India’s home minister warned on Wednesday that Hindu extremists posed an increasing risk to national security, dubbing the threat as 'saffron terror'"
2) "The colour saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism in India and some right-wing groups have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country"

Based on these two statements the definitions would be either of the two(both of which are acceptable to me):

1) Saffaron Terror is terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists who pose a risk to national security of India OR 

2) Saffaron Terror is terrorism conducted by militant right-wing Hindu nationalists groups in India

Respectfully, that is my closing argument and my last post on the topic of definition for the word "Saffron Terror." I would like to thank those that have taken the time to read my posts. I hope the administrator will side with our reasoning, logic and the source cited earlier. We accept whichever ruling the administrators give. May Justitia reign. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC))

It is almost the same source that is present in the article, all we can get from this source is what colour the Hindu Nationalism can be associated with and that few right wing groups have been linked to militant attacks. There is no mention of "inspired by Hindu Nationalism".--sarvajna (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the DRN. I'm not an administrator, and (as far as I'm aware) neither is Cabe6403. We're volunteers, which neither requires not gives us any special privileges or rights. We're not here to issue rulings or take sides, we're here to mediate between you guys and help you to reach an agreement, and nothing we say is binding. CarrieVS (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on that source.

• Point 2) suggests (though doesn't say explicitly) that that is the reason why Saffron Terror is so called, but it doesn't explain what the term means, so isn't relevant to this discussion.
• Point 1) is as clear as anything we've got as a definition of Saffron Terror. But all that means is that the rest is even more vague. It looks like it says that Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists. But
  • I am not confident enough to say for sure whether it says so explicitly enough to use it as a citation. Thoughts on that please.
  • It does not say anything about Nationalists - to get that from this source would be synthesis at best.CarrieVS (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am okay with calling it that and it not including nationalists but extremists. However, the next sentence should state what the color saffaron is associated with since it is mentioned in multiple articles attempting to describe saffron terror. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Both the points above would have a lot of problem in getting sources, as it is there are no proven incidents. I would diagree with the color thing that Lowkeyvision wants to be added. The saffron color is present in the Indian National flag as well, not just that even the congress party whose leaders have been using this term have saffron in the flag of their party . I think the best acceptable definition would be Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe terrorism in India, allegedly perpetrated by Hindu nationalists (this is present in the article now)--sarvajna (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no problem with mentioning the association of Saffron to Hinduism, Nationalism, Hindu Nationalism, or anything else that you can source and reach a consensus on, somewhere in the article. But it doesn't tell us anything about the definition of Saffron Terror, which is what we're trying to work out. CarrieVS (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier definition of "Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists." (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

what about the sources, can we find sources which say that Hindu extremists have perpetrated terror? As CarriesVS has said earlier are not here to define the term on our own. We would need sources, the sources only claim that Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe some kind of terrorism and the sources also say that these terror incidents whihc are being reffered as saffron terror have been allegedly perpetrated by Hindu extremists. So the best definition can be Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe terrorism in India, allegedly perpetrated by Hindu extremists/nationalist --sarvajna (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism"

I can find sources that say it does not exist, and criticising the Shinde for making remark.

1. The Times of India - Lucknow, There's nothing called saffron terror: Deoband, by Pervez Iqbal Siddiqui,11 February 2013. The Islamic university/seminary, "Darul Uloom Deoband has dismissed the use of term 'saffron terrorism'. The seminary spokesperson said terrorism was a crime against humanity and couldn't be seen through the lens of religion."
2. Hindustan Times - North India, "Saffron terror" remark: BJP wants Shinde sacked, RSS calls him "darling of terrorists", 21 January 2013. BJP chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad described the statement by Sushilkumar Shinde as follows: "It is a malicious, baseless comment made by a lightweight home minister who doesn't know what he is speaking about." Arun Jaitley (who is the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha) said "Shinde has to prove what he has said otherwise he has to withdraw the remark or apologise".
3. The Times of India, Shinde may say sorry for "Hindu terror" comment, by Mohua Chatterjee, 13 February 2013. "Shinde may express regret in Parliament when it opens for the budget session on February 21... Sources said he shared a draft of what he plans to say with Swaraj".

--Toddy1 (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on those sources:

• Number 1 is an opinion piece deprecating the use of the term Saffron Terror, and does not say either that the phenomenon doesn't exist or that the term is not used to describe it.
• Number 2 has a similar sentiment, except that it barely mentions Saffron Terror. It mentions the association of the colour saffron with Hinduism - which is essentially irrelevant; see my response in the section above, and it uses the phrase "saffron Hindu terror". Which comes fairly close to saying that Saffron terror is conducted by Hindus (though it is says nothing about nationalism), but is implied at best.
• Number 3 mentions comments relating to Hindu terror, but says nothing more explicit. It also says that Shinde alleged links of BJP and RSS to Saffron Terror, but does not tell us anything about what the term means. CarrieVS (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Source No 1 is not an opinion piece.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right; I misunderstood it. But what it is is someone's opinion that the term shouldn't be used, not that it isn't used. This might well be helpful and relevant information to put elsewhere in the article, but it doesn't help us with this dispute. CarrieVS (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: all the sources I've seen are connected to comments (possibly a single comment) by a single person, and seem to suggest that he coined the term. I think it would be helpful to see

• Something relating to use of the term Saffron Terror by someone else (by which I don't mean someone talking about what he said).
• What he actually said. CarrieVS (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

At least one source uses the expression "dubbing the threat as 'saffron terror'", which seems at first glance to suggest that this was where the term was coined, but that can't be the case as it appears to be very recent, and the term Saffron Terror has been around since 2008. CarrieVS (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Kahastok (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The International position section of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article is being drafted after the old one was removed by editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. These two editors argue that China's position should not be included in the section (specifically the sentence: China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) as per WP:WEIGHT (I'll let them explain their reasons) and at the same time argue that the British Commonwealth should be included (The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory) China's position can be easily sourced (UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, Infobae, La Nación, Clarin and many many more smaller sources) while they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion around this section has been going on for weeks now. This is only one point where agreement has not been reached, although a relevant one given its implications on what standards we should use when adding content to WP. I note that I'd have no problem backing the Commonwealth mention provided we can source it.

How do you think we can help?

Commenting on whether the reasons/sources provided are enough to either include both mentions in the section (China/Commonwealth), include only one or none. I believe they are using WP:WEIGHT in a "double-standard" way that permits them to dismiss a thoroughly sourced position (China) and at the same time back the inclusion of another position, as of yet un-sourced (Commonwealth).

Opening comments by Wee Curry Monster

After discussion with Cabe4603, I have agreed to refactor my comments to be more focused.

As I see it, I believe this request should be rejected, for the very simple reason there is no dispute as described above. To be explicit:

1. I have never refused to allow mention of China.
2. I have not made any statement either for or against the inclusion of China.
3. You'll not find a single occasion in the current talk page discussion where I comment on the inclusion or otherwise of China.

The accusations of "double standards" are a personal attack against two editors, whilst DRN is not about editor behaviour, it is also not a platform to allow personal attacks. I am disappointed no one commented on that before accepting the case. My initial response was prompted by more than a little irritation that those comments were allowed to stand without question. It sets the wrong tone for any DR attempt to be successful.

The discussion in the talk page has been progressing toward a consensus text, noting this and other comments at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute no one sees this as necessary at this time. As regards mention of China and my alleged refusal to include it. This is a strawman of Gaba p's own invention see , where he presumes I will object and has proceeded accordingly. Please note this was late on Thursday eve last week, if you check my contribution history I have not edited much over the weekend and anyway it would difficult to comment as the prodigious output of contradictory statements and antagonistic approach to every editor makes it difficult to follow never mind comment on any argument he makes.

His presumption is incorrect.

I have no objection to the mention of China, provided this is done in a manner to inform our readers as to why. In a quid pro quo, Argentina expresses support for China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan, in return for China supporting Argentina's sovereignty claim (see ). I would suggest the request is rejected. I'm sorry but I believe this to be a waste of time for everyone involved. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kahastok

So far as I can tell, any section on third parties is undue weight. But I can accept a short section as a compromise. There are two questions here: the general and the specific. The DRN was opened on the specific, so I will base this statement on the specific.

I, unlike Curry Monster, have opposed a mention of China. There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute. There is no reason to assume that it is. At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history - other than two votes on Security Council resolutions during the 1982 war (that were not cast in Argentina's favour). The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan. Ultimately, we are not looking at a country that's significantly engaged in the dispute, and it's not as though support for Argentina in general is not already covered in detail by the proposals.

But while support for Argentina is covered in detail by all proposals, Gaba's proposal does not mention any support for Britain at all.

Whereas Argentina is very aggressive in soliciting statements - President Fernández stormed out of a major summit over this last April - Britain is not. So it's generally easier to source statements supporting Argentina. But that doesn't mean that we should bias the article. It cannot be neutral to go into detail on support for Argentina while acting as though Britain has none - that's Héctor Timerman's POV but it's not reality.

All that said, I agree with Curry Monster above: I note that this section was only opened after Gaba issued an ultimatum that I read as, support me or else. We're progressing fine on talk. That's the best place for this to stay. Kahastok talk 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Langus

I'm adding my name preemptively, because I consider myself involved and interested in the result of this discussion. However, there are many issues at play right now, and I don't think we could just discuss the China stance and the "double-standards" when judging WP:WEIGHT without falling in a larger discussion. Further, I still have hope in the efforts to agree on a new version. I would suggest to leave in suspense this discussion and, in the case of no consensus being reached, open up a new ticket. --Langus (t) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute discussion

Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean my voice carries more weight that anyone elses, simply I will attempt to act as an impartial mediator. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can proceed with the discussion. Cabe6403 13:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please notice how Wee's wall of text does not address the very simple content issue being reported and instead makes several accusations on the editor reporting it (which I won't bother to refute since this isn't ANI) This is a perfect reflection of how he conducts himself at the talk page and precisely the reason why we can't move forward. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Speaking as an average reader, I would be interested in knowing which countries support both "sides". For example, I'd expect the article to include a paragraph like (I'm just picking random contries here):

Argentina's claim is supported by Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, and India. The UK's claim is supported by France, Russia, Norway, and USA. The UN has taken no position, but has encouraged the countries to engage in negotiations.

It looks like both parties agree that this kind of material can be included in the article, but there is a suggestion that including China (or other countries?) would violate WP:UNDUE. I don't think WP:UNDUE can be used to exclude any country's position, because that policy generally applies only when too much text is included in the article. The formulation I'm suggesting is just a brief list, so UNDUE is not violated. Of course, each country's position must be supported by a WP:RS and that source must be identified in a footnote. In summary: if the sources clearly state what China's position is, it should be included in the article. Ditto for every other country's position ... both pro-UK and pro-Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

...sorry, just noticed one opening party has not yet provided an opening statement. My apologies. I'll revisite later and amend my comment if needed. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference: Old version of section - here is an older version of the "International Position" section that is at issue: --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.

France has been particularly supportive of the British position.

The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory.

China has repeatedly endorsed the Argentinian claim over the islands.

Brazil and Chile officially support the Argentine claim over the Falklands, and have voiced their support at international organisations. Brazil has extended it's support to include Argentina's claims to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

For reference - Jan 2013 RfC on this topic. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment A half of the dispute overview presented above is: “The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory” – “... they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention”. As a matter of fact they did, sourcing that listing to United Kingdom - Falkland Islands; cf. also Commonwealth Membership: Associated & Overseas Territories. Apcbg (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Those two are primary sources (both Commonwealth's domains). Both Wee and Kahastok have repeatedly argued against the use of primary sources which is exactly why neither of them presented those articles even though I asked them to do so repeatedly. Those two sources also can't be used to establish WP:WEIGHT in the way Wee and Kahastok say it should be established, ie: exclusively through secondary sources "on the subject at hand" (subject at hand=International position on the Falklands/Malvinas issue).

I note that we have no secondary sources even mentioning this statement (let alone a source exclusively "on the subject at hand"), so the relevance or notability of it is very much questionable. Notwithstanding, I would be ok with the use of these two primary sources as long as we agree that a similar standard can and should be applied to the inclusion of other countries/group of countries in the section. Otherwise we'd be applying a double-standard by relaxing the conditions only for this mention and hardening them for everything else which is definitely not WP:NPOV.

Would you like to comment on the issue of China's mention too Apcbg? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The convention in DRN is to wait until all parties have posted opening comments before starting the discussion. User Kahastok has not yet posted an opening comment, so we should wait for that to happen before initiating the discussion. I myself overlooked the missing opening comment, and posted a comment here, but that was a mistake. So let's wait for Kahastok. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that the final (named) party has made their opening statement, so I'm un-collapsing this discussion text. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok made some great points in their opening statement. Some brief thoughts:

1) K writes: "There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute."

Publicly stated support by any country is significant in and of itself. Readers will want to know what countries are supporting both "sides".

2) K writes: "At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history"

As long as a country makes a public statement about their position, that is sufficient. No other action is needed. Foreign policy positions are rarely supported by actions beyond their declarations.

3) K writes: "The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan."

Good point; if there was a quid-pro-quo (and RSs so state) then that certainly should be included in the article.

Again, we need to do what's best for readers. They'll want to know what countries are supporting Arg or UK. The section should be brief and factual. Of course, support for UK must be included on an equal footing with support for Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it end, though? I mean, the argument originally made was that this should extend to every country in the world that has ever made a statement. We would effectively be converting the article from an informative discussion on the dispute into little more than a list of countries that don't care and the statements they made once upon a time.

The most accurate description of the international position would seem to be that very few countries outside Britain and Argentina themselves give two hoots about the thing. A slightly arcane dispute over a small group of islands in the middle of nowhere is going to be pretty close to the bottom of most countries' foreign policy agendas, except insofar as there is an actual risk of war. As such I do not believe it is possible to list countries in this way without enormously overstating their support.

Even when dealing with the countries that most frequently sign statements - Argentina's neighbours in Latin America - we can source (section "All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure") that they sign the statements but don't necessarily subscribe to the positions the statements espouse. When the price of doing business with a country like Argentina is to sign a throwaway statement on a dispute that they don't care about, a lot of countries will sign the statement and never think about it again. It's not a committed position. In some cases we have countries signed up to support both sides within weeks of one another - in a few cases that appeared to switch sides three times in the space of three months. That's not the sign of a dispute that countries outside the involved parties care about.

Finally, I note that as was demonstrated when removing the old section was first proposed (and note that the archive has gone significantly out of order), many similar articles get along perfectly happily without any similar section. I don't see why we need it at all. But if we have to have it it has to be neutral, and I don't see a listing of countries that don't care, assigned to one side or the other as though they had strongly held views, as neutral. Kahastok talk 22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing foreign policy positions on a major international dispute is very encyclopedic. It is only "not neutral" if editors bias the material by selectively omitting material. The older version of the article only lists only three countries/entities that have made statements (France, Brazil, Chile). How many additional countries have made statements of support in this dispute which are clearly documented by reliable sources? Five? Ten? Can you supply the sources for these additional countries? --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are seriously suggesting that simply compiling such a list is encyclopedic, then I have to comment that is a very naive approach to compiling this section and has already lead to a very problematic section prone to edit wars and for agenda based editing.

It is inappropriate because essentially it is a proposal to conduct original research. It requires editors to weigh the often contradictory statements that are out there and then synthesise a position for a particular country. The positions are not always easy to identify, far from it - countries make contradictory statements. Argentina has also muddied the waters claiming support from Caribean countries that are part of the Commonwealth of Nations, forcing several of them to issue official denials that they do not.

What is appropriate is to look at secondary sources to see how they describe the International dimension and this is exactly what we've done. We have looked to neutral 3rd party academic sources to describe the International dimension. The first thing you'll notice if you take this approach, is just how little WP:WEIGHT is attached to this aspect in the literature.

You seem to find this surprising, however, I would disagree. It is a political ploy in Argentina to constantly raise the issue for domestic political reasons but outside of Argentina few other countries see it as a foreign policy imperative. Even in the UK, Argentina's aggressive diplomatic offensive under the Kirchner presidencies has been seen as an irritant and little more. Argentina has an aggressive diplomatic agenda, it raise the subject constantly, it constantly demands statements of support at regional summits and at every foreign meeting. Any such statement on whether a country has issued a statement needs to also include the fact that Argentina solicits such statements. Another rather bizarre aspect of the Argentine diplomatic offensive is that it often issues a statement thanking countries for their support, whether they support the Argentine position or not. Often they have issued no more than a platitude that they hope the UK and Argentina can simply settle the dispute.

Whilst some countries, especially in Latin America, may make statements of support, in fact few of them pay more than lip service to Argentina ( an article in La Nacion that makes this same point). The process of simply compiling a list is unlikely to be one that will produce a neutral text.

This brings me back to another point, there is also more than one way of making a text that is biased by ommission. Gaba p has insisted we are not allowed to include what commentators observe about the level of support enjoyed by Argentina. This he alleges is "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys. Similarly if we are to mention China, well you're not allowed to mention that it is a quid pro quo as this "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys.

Even if you source commentary from several sources, establish the range of opinions expressed in the literature this is alleged to be biased and Gaba p will then add a number of quotes taken from news sources as "balance" completely ignoring the WP:WEIGHT attached to such comments in the literature.

Another tactic is to claim no source has not been provided to establish WP:WEIGHT for any nation that supports the British position - even when it has - and to then noisily demand material is removed as WP:UNDUE.

Whilst I had some doubts about whether DRN is appropriate given the discussion was approaching a consensus, I have to note that I have now compromised so much the text that has now resulted has diverged so far from neutral I find I simply can't support it any more. Really if we're going to get anything out of a mediated DRN discussion, what is needed is a neutral mediator and to go back to square one. Starting with how to establish WP:WEIGHT. If the comment is going to be simply compile a list of anything you can source, then my first suggestion is going to be take this to WP:NPOVN again I can't see how anything other than the same problematic section of unencyclopedic crap will result. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments against identifying specific countries is hard to analyze without knowing one key fact: How many countries do the sources say have expressed clear support one way or another? If the answer is only 5 or 6, that is a very small number, and identifying them would be very informative to readers. If the answer is 20 or 40, then listing them becomes tedious and it is better to summarize. From what I can glean from the Talk page, the total is only around 5 or 6, correct? --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer depends on the exact terms of the question.

Firstly, what constitutes clear support? Does a statement supporting negotiations constitute clear support for one side or the other? Both sides have declined discussions except on their own terms. Does a statement expressing hope for speedy resolution constitute support for either side? What about countries that have been thanked by Argentina for offering full support, but where we cannot otherwise source that full support was offered? What about those countries that have issued statements clearly supporting one side, but where we can source analysts arguing that their real position differs from the statement that they have signed - such as Chile: despite repeated statements backing Argentina, this analyst argues that "the reality is that Chile would not like to see any sovereignty changes in South America"? It's not difficult to source this even to Argentine-biased sources.

Secondly, how far back do we go? Lots of countries took an interest in 1982, because of the Falklands War. Do they count? The UN General Assembly issued resolutions in the past, the last in 1988. Does a vote in the UNGA 25 years or more ago count as "clear support" for either side?

Thirdly, what about those countries that might be said to have issued clear support for both sides?

Fourthly, what do we mean by "the sources"? Does that mean anything we can reliably source, or does WP:WEIGHT get taken into account? If countries have made statements that are given zero weight in the literature about the dispute or about the positions of third parties, do we count them?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the number could be anything from one to a hundred and fifty or more. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Close DRN? - I notice that vigorous discussion is continuing on the article Talk page. We should have only one forum active at a time. DRN is entirely voluntary, and it looks like several editors are ignoring the DRN process. For that reason, the DRN case should probably be closed. It can always be re-opened later if the talk page discussion fails to reach a resolution (or, perhaps an RfC would be more appropriate?). I'm here only as an uninvolved editor ... DRN volunteer Cabe6403 offered to host this DRN case. We can see what they say. --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it for 24 hours, if the discussion continues on the talk page and the majority of the involved editors do not contribute here I will close this DRN. If the parties wish to file another one once they have finished discussing on the talk page (assuming it is not resolved) they are welcome to do so. Cabe6403 10:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to comment yesterday. Noleander: your comments reflect almost verbatim what I and a number of other editors have already told Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. You can see by their walls of text that they simply refuse to get the point. I see Wee Curry Monster mentions taking this to WP:NPOVN. Let me point out that there already is a discussion at WP:NPOVN opened by Wee himself a couple of weeks ago in which two un-involved editors have commented on Wee and Kahastok's "standard for inclusion" (the same one they are presenting here) Both editors said that reliable secondary sources like newspapers are more than enough to establish weight, but Wee and Kahastok again simply refuse to get the point.

Regarding your question, there's only a handful of positions to be mentioned: two major groups (Latin America and the EU) and two key players (the US and China). Other than these there are a few other countries that have clearly stated a position (like Spain) but their addition is debatable.

If you go to the talk page, you'll see that there is almost a consensus to add one of the versions (the one proposed by the un-involved editor Scjessey). Wee and Kahastok are opposing it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a classic case of an international dispute carrying over into a WP article. I have no preference one way or another (UK vs Arg). But speaking as a typical WP reader: right now the article is missing key information: naming the handful of government entities that have taken a foreign policy position on the issue. If this dispute continues for awhile, an RfC may be more efficient than a DRN case, because the RfC can be semi-binding if it is formally closed. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like neither side will budge on the matter. Since DRN is a voluntary process it is up to the parties to agree or come to a compromise. If that isn't likely to happen then I would second the call for an RfC as it can be somewhat enforced Cabe6403 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in participating in DRN because I don't believe it is necessary, but I have started monitoring it. I feel moved to respond to Noleander's last comment. You say the article is "missing key information" with respect to governments with declared positions on the Falkland Islands. While it may seem appropriate to do that, it has a serious NPOV issue. The problem is the de facto status of the Falkland Islands is they are a British Overseas Territory and have been for a very long time indeed. Unless a nation wishes to specifically dispute this fact, they are unlikely to declare any position on the matter. As in the case of most disputes, it is only the entities who wish to change the status quo who are going to make a fuss; therefore, you are unlikely to find much coverage in reliable sources that is not supporting the Argentine claim. Listing countries who have recently declared a position on the status of the Falkland Islands is almost certainly going to seriously overstate support for Argentina's claim. Anyway, I would prefer to see this debate take place on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you're both making the classic oversimplification of an issue on wikipedia, blaming everyone equally for an inability to gain agreement, when in reality a single problematic editor who won't compromise is the cause. Not only that but in a classic example of WP:BEANS you've actually given him another stick to browbeat other editors with. He has just announced that DRN has officially "endorsed" his position, ie that anything he can source must be included as that is a suitable way of establishing weight. We were getting somewhere and were close to getting agreement, now we're back to square one. Now having taken us back to square one, you're proposing to abandon us to leaving us to have to go over the same ground.

I have previously supported Scjessey's text, to claim I'm blocking it is untrue I can't support it for the simple reason its been compromised and compromised to the point where it only mentions countries that support Argentina. The very comments you make about balance and NPOV and informing readers are being ignored to push a none neutral text.

Is the statement that is coming from DRN that you don't have to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT ie comments should reflect the weight attached to them in the literature but you can just compile a list of random comments that support one position and ignore those that contradict it? Please do comment, that is what you're allegedly saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you link the diff where he claims DRN endorses something? DRN, by it's very nature, is voluntary. It cannot 'endorse' anything, make official judgements or issue policies. It's simply a voluntary place to get some outside opinions. DRN only works if all the involved editors make an effort to be involved and focus the debate here. The point of suggesting we close it is that discussion is going on elsewhere and not all editors are contributing here, therefore this is an incomplete discussion. Cabe6403 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403: I believe Wee might be referring to this comment of mine, the "All" section. Please note I never said DRN was "endorsing" anything, I merely commented on what editors here and at NPOVN have said about the issue. If you believe that comment somehow misrepresents what Noleander has said so far then I will gladly correct myself but I have to say this looks more like another one of Wee's casual misrepresentations of my comments (something we have argued about a few times already). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the article is missing key information and I don't believe that adding to the article information we can reliably source has any implication on NPOV. What Scjessey says is absolutely true nonetheless, there are a great number of countries voicing its support for Argentina (the party interested in changing the status quo) but virtually none doing the same for the UK (who does not want to change the status quo) I think this "analysis" should be mentioned given that we find a reliable source to do so. But again: I don't see it as a NPOV issue. This is WP and we report on what we can source. If we have no sources to back countries supporting the UK's position then the article should reflect this because it is a fact. The only way we would be violating NPOV is if we were to decide for ourselves that we should refrain from mentioning countries that clearly support a side because we can't find sources for countries supporting the other side. That would be a manufacture of the international position instead of a true reflection of its current state. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here. Note that he mentions WP:NPOVN, the thread is here. Note his claim that both boards have agreed with him that WP:WEIGHT can be established by means of routine news coverage.

I feel I should be absolutely clear about what we're talking about here. Nobody is arguing that routine news coverage cannot be used to source fact (which appears to be what the NPOVN comments are about). Nobody is arguing that background news reports that discuss the issue in its entirety cannot be used to establish due weight. The question is whether the mere existence of a source documenting a particular statement, such as this, establishes that a given point should be accorded due weight, no matter what subject the news report concerned is discussing and even when the point is not mentioned given any weight by reliable sources that deal with the dispute as a whole.

In short, whether the fact that this exists, taken alone, absolutely requires us to mention China by name. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. Once an editor has found a reliable source that says the 2nd most powerful nation on earth has taken a side in the Falk dispute, then of course it should go into the article. Excluding it is a form of censorship. You seem to think that adding that fact will somehow cause readers to get an erroneous impression of some sort. Perhaps leading them to conclude that Argentina's claim is stronger than the UKs? That is not for you to decide. We find the facts about the dispute, make sure the sources are reliable, and put them in the article. Period. UNDUE only kicks in if an editor adds way too much detail about one particular topic, out of proportion to what the sources say. For example, if an editor added 2 whole paragraphs about China, that would violate UNDUE, ... but no one is proposing that. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Except there is more to it than just China deciding to support Argentina, China and Argentina have engaged in a quid pro quo in which China supports Argentina over the Falklands and in turn Argentina supports China over Taiwan. Do you not think that should be mentioned? Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina. Thats a form of censorship, if we simply state China supports Argentina but don't explain WHY! Isn't it?

And again no, we don't just source facts and put stuff into articles see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We also have to bear in mind WP:WEIGHT, if we find the majority opinion in sources is that Chinese support is immaterial then that is a good argument for not including it. Noting also that the majority of literature on the sovereignty dispute attaches very little weight to expressions of support by various nations, then a large section listing every country who has ever commented isn't appropriate.

So is it your opinion, anything we can source should be included? That is a POV pushers charter for chaos. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wee you do realize that this "Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina." is completely untrue right? You are quoting me on something I absolutely never said (!) At this point all these constant misrepresentation of other editor's comments has become so much of a habit for you that I truly believe you can't tell the difference anymore. I would strongly advice you to be far more careful when talking about what other editors said. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No threats in this discussion please. Cabe6403 12:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I see it it's a warning not a threat. In either case I removed it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Kahastok you are now engaging in the same war-like attitude Wee has been displaying. I absolutely never said that the noticeboards were either "endorsing" me or "agreeing" with me. I merely commented on what editors here and there had said. If you read Neolander's comments, they are almost a perfect reflection of what I've been saying at the talk page for weeks now and comments both here and at WP:NPOVN go against the ad-hoc "standard for inclusion" you and Wee are pushing.

Furthermore Kahastok is purposely downplaying the number of sources stating China's support. There are actually seven reliable sources: UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, Infobae, La Nación, Clarin and many many more smaller sources. I argue a fact completely related to the section at hand and thoroughly mentioned in reliable secondary sources is worthy of being included. They argue it is not because ... (?) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff where Gaba p claims that DRN has endorsed his position that coverage alone establishes weight.

I note above that he states his belief that coverage in the media of its own establishes weight and that is sufficient. My reading of WP:WEIGHT is that the coverage in an article reflects the weight and range of opinions in the literature, which is ideally satisfied by coverage in neutral 3rd party academic sources. While the news is a valuable and frequently used WP:RS, coverage is not a suitable standard for establishing weight. I would be grateful if mediators could comment on how they interpret policy on weight.

Similarly his claim that there are only countries that has issued statements in support of Argentina. I reject that claim, there are plenty of Commonwealth states that do not and have supported the position of the islanders. I simply bring this to your attention, the official statement from the Argentine Government insisting that not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands.

Finally, I note that Langus-TxT has joined Gaba p in making an accusation that editors are practising a "double standard". Can I ask the mediators if you feel these comments are appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not a correct interpretation of WP:WEIGHT (also called WP:UNDUE). That policy only excludes information if an editor puts in too much text about it ... causing readers to get the wrong impression. The WP:NNC policy states that we dont assess the notability of individual facts when we consider them for inclusion in the article. Adding a single sentence saying "China supports Argentina's position" is not - by any stretch of the imagination - a violation of WEIGHT. Now, it may be that there are some surrounding context that is required to make sure readers dont get misled (e.g. source A says there was a quid pro quo), if so, by all means, mention that context. But all this has been said multiple times before, and you refuse to hear it. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are rather adrift from what I've actually said. In fact, from my perspective you seem determined to make things worse by endorsing Gaba p's erroneous understanding of WP:WEIGHT. He seems to believe that sourcing alone establishes weight.

I will state yet again just so there is no doubt whatsoever - I don't oppose mention of China, in a simple form explaining why.

I have in fact never opposed it.

The only reason to comment about WP:WEIGHT is not to insist that coverage of China is excluded but that the article warrants a small section on the International situation reflecting the weight of opinion attached to it in the literature.

The comments about WP:WEIGHT refer to Gaba p's erroneous belief if he can source something in a news report, he can put in anything that can be sourced that alone establishes weight. Quoting from policy:

Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources. Simply because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included, the coverage must be proportionate, which is what I'm arguing. Yet, you've loudly endorsed his approach, you keep saying he is right and I am wrong in saying coverage should be proportionate. Is that really what you want to say? Because that is what he is claiming, that you're endorsing is approach to editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, you don't get it (or rather refuse to get it). "Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources.", exactly. That's why we mention what we can source proportionate to the length in those reliable secondary sources. The mention of China is of course warranted given that it can be reliably sourced and the weight given to it by reliable sources is more than enough to warrant the length proposed (a single sentence mention). The mention of the Commonwealth is not warranted exactly for the same reasons: you have absolutely no secondary sources commenting on its position, not even a little bit. You have agreed to mention China in the article which is great, the only thing left is that you lift your block so we can establish a consensus and finally include the section into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(This was originally a response to your previous comment, but I feel it is still appropriate.)

This is already too much text. As a rule, the sources give barely any weight at all to third party positions in a modern context - that's why we're having to scrabble about like this with news reports. I mentioned the point because Gaba has in the past - and is now taking this discussion as endorsing - this as applying to all countries. The standard he set previously was that any country for which a position could be sourced to two or more sources should be mentioned, and that any attempt to assess them based on how powerful they are is irredeemably offensive.

Why, in your view, does the fact that China might be considered the second most powerful nation on Earth mean it necessarily belongs? My view differs for reasons that I gave in my opening statement. How far down the list, in your view, does this automatic relevance reach - what about Russia? France? Canada? Are they automatically relevant as well? Kahastok talk 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And another comment, "war like" attitude - is that appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the next step here is for interested editors to create a WP:RFC on this issue ... that will bring in several uninvolved editors who can clarify the UNDUE policy. DRN typically only brings in 1 or 2 uninvolved editors, which is not sufficient in this situation. If anyone needs help with creating an RfC, I'd be happy to help. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that both Wee and Kahastok vehemently refuse to accept a minimum mention of a country who's position can be thoroughly sourced (I've presented 7 sources here) but are right now blocking the consensus at the talk page arguing that the position of the Commonwealth must be included even though they have presented exactly zero secondary sources for it. This is what I mean when I comment on their "double standards". Their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here is an exact reflection of what has been going on at the talk page for weeks now.

I thank you very much for your input Noleander. Hopefully your clear comments will help solve this issue over at the talk page. If the consensus is still blocked a few days from now (and if the others editors working over at the talk page agree to it) I'll ask you to please open an RfC as an un-involved editor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Break

Ok, this is turning a little sour with the main points of the discussion being diluted by finger pointing and bickering. Although I don't have the authority to enforce what I am about to propose I would like it if the involved editors at least humour me as we try come to an amicable resolution.

I would like the main three parties involved here (Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok and Gaba p) to write a short summary of their stance on the situation. It is to be focused purely on content, no finger pointing, name calling or anything. It is to be no more than 200 words (not even 201). Imagine if you only had 200 words to get your point across and you were allowed to say no more after that.

I would ask that all editors refrain from commenting on others statements until all have responded and I have had a chance to read up and respond.

Like I say, this is voluntary and you are welcome to ignore it but distilling this down to the content will make the issue clearer. If you agree to participate in this experiment simply write your statements and no more. No snappy comments about other users involvement, nothing. Cabe6403 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

May I add my view? --Langus (t) 04:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I simply added the names of the three I observed to be most active on this page Cabe6403 08:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

200 Word statement by Gaba p

The position of China should be mentioned given that it can be thoroughly sourced (7 sources) and it's a single-sentence mention what is being proposed so there is no violation of WP:WEIGHT. The Commonwealth should not be mentioned since we have exactly zero secondary sources to back its inclusion. That's it.

200 Word statement by Wee Curry Monster

Per WP:WEIGHT since sources on the sovereignty dispute do not dwell on the International dimension, a short summary section is warranted. I believe the content should include:

1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution
2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.

Note my opening statement - I have never said China should not be mentioned. Can we have that noted please. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that was around 150 words....

200 Word statement by Kahastok

Sorry for the wait:

My view remains that the WP:WEIGHT provided by the sources on the subject suggests that no section at all is the most appropriate position. But if we are to have one, I would note:

• The section should be sustainably short, under a level-3 heading rather than a level-2 heading.
• We should mention Argentina's aggressive approach to soliciting support straight out.
• We should discuss the point in terms of generalities, and should avoid listing countries (though that's not to say we should avoid mentioning e.g. the US) or individual statements, or attempting to provide exhaustive coverage.
• We should not, by implication, omission or statement, suggest that either side has no support - this would be neither neutral nor accurate. A mention of the Commonwealth is a reasonable means of reflecting the British side.
• Where sources suggest that support that is otherwise mentioned carries caveats or qualifications (Latin America's "lip service"), or is offered in return for some form of inducement (China's quid pro quo), the section should mention this.
• I have yet to see evidence or argument that persuades me that a mention of China is appropriate. Kahastok talk 10:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

200 Word statement by Langus

I know I'm a bit behind, sorry for that:

• Latin American support should definitely be mentioned. There was an objection to the amount of international bodies mentioned (three), so I think two bodies or just "the majority of Latin America" would suffice.
• If the US is so relevant that we must include it, so is China, specially having a clear stance.
• The listing of the islands as British OCT are not a declaration of support for the British position (unless proved by secondary sources). This doesn't mean we should not mention them, but we must avoid WP:OR
• Speculation about Argentine or Latin American reasons (as proposed above) should be avoided. This is a major setback to reach consensus, and it's only tangentially related to main point (International position). Such observations are not universally held. China & Taiwan could be a different case tho.
• The UN and the Decolonization Committee recommendations should be mentioned.
• The section should be short, although I'm struggling to find a way to include it under a L3 heading under the current structure.
• We must avoid harsh words that could be seen as a failure to WP:NPOV. --Langus (t) 17:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Break

Thanks everyone. I have two questions:

1. Are there really no sources that back the commonwealth position? I find that hard to believe considering the issue at hand.
2. What is the issue with mentioning all countries that have a stance in the matter as is done at articles like International recognition of Kosovo and International recognition of Palestine Cabe6403 10:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A key difference on the second question is that those articles are discussing places that claim to be sovereign states.

In that case, there is a fairly simple black-and-white question. Either you recognise that country as a sovereign state or you don't. And that's an ongoing statement of position - there will be no statement made but we can be certain that Britain recognises Kosovo today and that Argentina does not. There's no grey areas, no in-between space, no room for doubt and no room not to take a decision. If you don't actively recognise Kosovo, then you do not recognise Kosovo. And once you've recognised a state as sovereign, that position tends to be permanent, or at least semi-permanent. It is unusual for a country to revoke recognition and when they do that too tends to be a permanent or semi-permanent status.

This is not the case here. In this case, there is room to wiggle out of the question, or come to a more nuanced position, or just not to take a position at all. There are lots of shades of grey. When asked to give an opinion a lot of countries call for a speedy resolution without saying that resolution should be, or back negotiations without saying what the outcome of the negotiations should be. Argentina has taken such statements as support for her position, though this is often not actually the case. Several times, Argentina has thanked a country for its support only for the country concerned to deny that such support was offered. The Argentine press reports the thanks but not the denial and the Argentine government is happy.

If we tried to claim that every country that has not stated a preference prefers the status quo (i.e. supports the British) - which would be the equivalent of saying that all countries that have not actively recognised a state do not recognise it - I am certain that there would be howls of outrage from Gaba and others.

We can contrast the ongoing and semi-permanent nature of recognition of sovereignty with the fact that there and are several countries that have signed statements backing both sides in this dispute within weeks of one another. A statement or description of a position is an expression of an opinion at a particular moment, but does not necessarily imply ongoing support. With recognition of Kosovo, the fact of recognition applies until it is revoked, no matter who asks. This is not the case with a statement supporting one side in a dispute such as this.

Ultimately, I believe it is impossible to create such a list without WP:OR and bias, because whereas International recognition of Kosovo relies on positions that are black and white, the question in this case is rarely anything other than a shade of grey. Kahastok talk 11:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a similarly detailed response written up for the first one, but it occurs to me that this is going to turn into a wall of text. So, in brief:

• No, but it shouldn't surprise that Gaba claims that there isn't.
• The proposed wording is he Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory, which is accurate and easily sourced.
• Commonwealth support tends to be demonstrated through actions rather than words, which reflects the British approach that does not request continual statements of support. The wording reflects this.
• We can also make a case for individual Commonwealth countries. In particular, the case for including Canada is significantly stronger than the case for including China, though I would be inclined to include neither.

If you want me to post the full whack, let me know. Kahastok talk 12:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated earlier and elsewhere, it will be difficult to find sources that support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain because that is the status quo. In contrast, Argentina's aggressive lobbying of various nations yields news stories that provide plenty of sources for the relatively few countries that support their position. The following statements are probably true, but difficult to source:

• Most countries of the world support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain, but have not stated their positions because they support the status quo. The silent majority.
• Few countries support the Argentine position, but those that do have been encouraged to state their support recently. The vocal minority.

Unfortunately, trying to explain this problem in the article would require original research. Listing the countries that have citable, stated positions will always have WP:NPOV issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, you state that the position of recognising Kosovo is a black or white decision, either they do or they don't but that recognising the Falklands as part of the UK or Argentina is a grey area. It would seem to me that either you support Argentina or support the UK. Considering you said "If you don't actively recognise Kosovo then you do not recognise Kosovo" would it not be fair to say "If you don't actively dispute the UK's claim on The Falklands then you do not recognise Argentina's claim"?

I don't think you can compare Kosovo with the Falkland Islands at all. The former is a "young" nation that only declared itself independent in 2008, so it was necessary for countries of the world to formally state their positions quite recently. In contrast, there was no formal declaration of independence made by the Falkland Islands and their status has remained the same for the best part of two centuries. It has not been necessary for countries to come forward and state their position because of a change of status. Kahastok is right about the grey area. It is not a black or white issue because there are three possible positions:

1. Support the Argentine position
2. Support the Falkland Islander's position
3. Consider the matter undecided

It is the latter position that causes the grey area. Some nations have come out and said they consider the matter undecided and encourage talks in the hope of a resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an argument, sure, and I would consider it not an unreasonable one. Certainly, it would tally strongly with the two countries' different approaches to this point - Argentina is noisy because they want change, while Britain (and the FIG) wants everyone to keep quiet and just assume the status quo. But I think when Gaba reads it I'll be able to hear his protests from here. And I rather doubt that we could put it or anything like it in the article without straying somewhat from policy.

I agree with Scjessey above, ultimately, and note that even support for one or other position has not generally been the end of the matter for any particular country. Kahastok talk 14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I like Wee Curry Monster's proposal in his 200 word statement. Seems like a great middle ground
2. The foreign policy positions of other countries re the Falklands is eminently encyclopedic. Readers want to know that information. We do not omit information from the encyclopedia because editors feel it may present a distorted picture to readers. If it is distorted, there will be sources that say so, and we can include those source.
3. Editors arguing against inclusion of foreign policy statements rely on claims like "There are few countries that publically support UK because that is the status quo" or "Argentina is very noisy & agressive in their solicitation of support". If those claims are true, then let's find sources for the claims and include the claims in the article following the China/Latin America positions. If there are no sources found, then those claims are just the opinions of editors and should not serve to exclude material from the article.

--Noleander (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WCM has proposed to mention that Latin American support is little more than "lip service". Would you accept to include such a bold statement in Misplaced Pages even if that is not the universally held opinion?

Also, I fail to see why editors believe that the US or the EU are much more relevant than China. Wouldn't that be too Western-centric? --Langus (t) 17:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the article must be supported by reliable sources, in accordance with the WP:Verifiability policy. If an editor suggests including some fact F (such as "Latin American support is merely lip service") then we may presume that the editor has a source that states fact F. If there is no reliable source, it does not go in the article. Regarding US vs China: I don't recall any editor saying that US/EU views should be included and China should be excluded (I think the editors fall into two camps: name all; or name none). In any case, yes, it would be inappropriate to include US/EU but exclude China. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I note that my find tool cannot find either of your quotes in your message of 16:09, 16 February 2013 anywhere else on this page. Could you provide diffs please?

So far, I've seen lots of you asserting that China is relevant but I do not believe that I have yet seen a policy-based reason. Simply saying that China is the "2nd most powerful nation on earth" may be your perception, but I don't believe that policy generally considers that good enough. As I asked before, how far down the list of the most powerful nations are you arguing that inherent relevance lasts?

My perception, as I believe I have mentioned, is quite different. China is a strong economic power but its political influence is relatively limited outside its own backyard and areas of economic interest. China has little economic interest in the South-West Atlantic, a region that could not be much further from China's backyard. There are no factors that seem to me to argue that China is significantly more relevant than any one of a number of other states. But both those perceptions are irrelevant. I would like to see a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits. I do not believe I have yet seen one - certainly not one that I found persuasive.

Let us suppose that in three months time, after a brief meeting between the presidents of Argentina and Ruritania (an small country on the far side of the world with close to zero international influence), an editor turns up and says, there is no reason to mention China but not to mention Ruritania. The sourcing for Ruritania's position is just as good, and we have no objective reason to include China and exclude Ruritania other than our own perceptions of their significance, and they argue that those perceptions are highly offensive and that we cannot apply them in any case per WP:NOR. Do you think that Ruritania would have to be included? If so, why, and if not, what argument would you use against it? Kahastok talk 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is patently obvious that Argentina's aggressive lobbying is going to create more noise (and thus more sources) than the supporters of the status quo who don't need to say anything. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not reliable sources back the statement up. Noleander keeps saying the opinion of other countries is "encyclopedic", but I would say that is only the case in the proper weight. It is impossible to fairly represent the positions of nations who don't state them, and why state them (and thus draw the ire of Argentina) if they don't need to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, your Ruritania example is a slippery slope fallacy. I would oppose to it, since Rituania lacks the international influence that China enjoys:

• In the first decade of the 21st Century, China has risen to become an international power second only to the United States.
• Chinese and international commentators call for major changes in global governance to take account of China’s leading role.
• China is well positioned as the sole representative from Asia and from the developing world among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
• Beijing pushes for reforms in international financial institutions that would give China a much more prominent role in setting their policies.
• China participates actively in new international groupings, notably the G-20, that give much greater emphasis to the interests and needs of large developing countries than did previous leading international economic groupings like the G-7 or G-8.
• China has collaborated closely with Brazil, India and Russia in a new international grouping known as the BRIC. Another new grouping includes South Africa along with China, India and Brazil and it is known as BASIC.
• Prominent international dignitaries have called upon the United States and China to take the leading role in global politics by forming a “G-2” alignment to deal with salient international problems.

Taken from China’s Growing International Role, by Robert Sutter, third hit in my Google search.

I note that you demand "a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits", but you don't need one for the United States. I think the fact speaks for itself. --Langus (t) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Gaba has used precisely the arguments I noted in the discussion on talk. That if we mention one state we must mention all states and it's highly offensive to do anything else. It's not so much a slippery slope, as anticipating the next step based on arguments that have already been raised. I want to know that we won't be back here in three months time dealing with exactly the same arguments regarding half a dozen other countries - with the end result of a section no shorter than the one we got rid of.

Your argument seems to be that the China is the second most powerful country in the world. Now I'm not sure there's much in there that I couldn't quibble with, but I don't see any point because I see no need to argue with that statement.

The argument I put to you, and the argument I believe that the editor concerned would use, is that the leap you are making from China being the second most powerful country in the world to China's position being relevant in a particular dispute is pure original research. It is your supposition, not backed up by evidence. And we could make a very similar case for any number of countries, including some of the fellow members of some of the organisations you mention who (unlike China) have a clear economic or political interest in the South Atlantic. We could probably put something similar together for Ruritania, for that matter. So I find the argument unpersuasive.

And I note that I have never argued that a mention of the United States does not have to stand on its own merits. But we're not starting from the same place. Both the anecdotal evidence surrounding US interest in the region (the sort that you attempt to apply for China), and the actual sources that I have seen, suggest to me that the United States' interest in and relevance to the dispute is significantly stronger than China's, and I note that (unlike China) the United States has been playing a significant and meaningful role in the dispute - beyond simply making statements - throughout the history of the dispute. Every case needs to be judged on its merits, and I see no reason on that basis to assume that the conclusion for the US and the conclusion for China will be the same. Kahastok talk 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since certain editors here seem to think it is a good idea to state the positions of countries, why don't we have two lists? The first list can be all the countries who have expressed support for the Argentine position, and the second list can be all the countries who have not. We can start with the 192 countries in the UN and expand it to include countries like Taiwan, Tibet, South Ossetia, Kosovo and Chechnya who have not yet achieved full UN recognition (expands the number to around 230). We can list the countries alphabetically so that there is no original research over which countries are more important. This system has advantages for both "sides". Firstly, it eliminates the arguments over the Commonwealth and the EU (because we can represent the members independently). Secondly, it eliminates the weight problem over China, because it makes its importance in the article equal to any other nation. Thirdly, it eliminates the need to find reliable sources for the "have not expressed support for the Argentine position" column because, as we have already established, silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo. For countries that have flipped back and forth with support, we simply take their most recent stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be a whole article on its own... And still leaves us with the problem of interpretation of the EU's list of overseas territories, for example. Also, Scjessey, if silence on the matter "is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo", then the calls for negotiations would be essentially questioning the status quo, right? That is closer to Argentina's position than a neutral one. Just a thought for you.

@Kahastok: China has strong interest on the region, bear no doubt. Have you heard about commodities? Brazil and Argentina are among the top producers of soy bean and meat, Chile's mining industry is its main source of income. All those resources are vital for China's expansion: better income means better and more food for its inhabitants. In Argentina we are very aware of that, it is what has been fueling the economy the last decade.

China's explosive expansion is recent, but do note that it is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council since its foundation (a measure for relevance suggested before, in talk page). Its relevance is water clear; and if in doubt, it can be sourced, like I just did. Or, if you wonder about its relevance in this dispute, see:

Regards. --Langus (t) 15:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a "whole article". It could be a list or table that could be collapsed. I don't see what the list of overseas territories has to do with it. And calling for negotiations to resolve the dispute says absolutely nothing about the status of the Falkland Islands. Rather it is a desire for the dispute to end one way or another. So unless a nation has specifically come out in favor of Argentina's claim, it belongs in the other list. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry for not being able to answer in these last days. A couple of points:

1- I see in my absence the matter digressed a bit. This DRN was opened to solve a very particular issue: addition or not of China/Commonwealth. Wee has already stated he is in favor of mentioning China but still believes the Commonwealth should be mentioned. Kahastok is in favor of mentioning the Commonwealth too but not China. Neither of them have presented a secondary source yet for the Commonwealth. How are we to add something to an article with no secondary sources to back its inclusion? This is a very simple issue here folks. Present the secondary sources and we can be done with this.

2- I still can't understand Kahastok's reasoning here. He argues against the inclusion of China (thoroughly sourced) but for the addition of the Commonwealth (not one secondary source provided yet) How does your "how far down the list should we go" reasoning allows you to disregard China but back the Commonwealth?

3- Scjessey: this "silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo" is not right. In any case I'd say silence on the matter equals neutrality, but just as your assertion above it's WP:OR and simply not acceptable.

4- Let me quote a bit of one of Neolander's comment which I think summed up the issue:

This is Misplaced Pages folks. We base our edits on sources. If there's a source for the claims stated above then as Neolander says, we can add it. Everything else is just WP:OR.

5- Regarding the Commonwealth, if we can find a secondary source for its position then of course we add it. But if the standard for addition is being mentioned in one or two secondary sources then we apply this same standard to all other countries or group of countries. Anything else is just us applying a double standard to the section.

Can we try to put an end to this issue? It's been a month and we are still discussing the section. The only thing blocking Scjessey's last version is Wee and Kahastok's wish that the Commonwealth be mentioned. I say, present the secondary sources and we add it. Otherwise we should move on with the proposed version and improve the section when new sources become available. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A "neutral" position is the equivalent of "don't change anything because it is fine the way it is". Diplomats will only make a statement if they wish to see the status quo change, or if it is specifically in their best interests to support one "side" or the other. Otherwise they do not say anything at all, because it isn't diplomatic to do so. A lack of a statement is implicit support of the status quo. That's not original research. It's blindingly obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Poland

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Flag of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs)
• Kpalion (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Kpalion absolutely refuses to allow our Commons SVGs of the Polish flag to be used on the article, in favour of two files which show the white section of the flag as grey, which he claims is the statutory colour by law. He repeatedly removed the SVGs with real white from the infobox, it became an edit war between myself and him back in June 2011, however since I left the article at that date, he has tried to impose photographs of the Polish flags as a "compromise", which was never agreed to by anybody. He has repeatedly reverted IPs and any other users that wish to return the white SVGs to the infobox. I came back and returned the SVGs once, and he has again removed them completely and placed photographs in the infobox. Despite whatever he claims, there simply is zero consensus for this action, and every single other article on Misplaced Pages uses the SVGs that Commons provides. It is only Kpalion that has a problem with the SVGs of the Polish flag we have, and he is edit warring and showing an ownership problem over the article to impose his will because he does not like the SVGs.

Proper dispute resolution is required, because 30 did not bring about a resolution, and Kpalion will continue to impose his will as long as it is allowed. Either a proper consensus must be formed here against his imposition and his changes forcibly reverted, or consensus gained in his favour for this very unorthodox presentation and exclusion. However, the current situation of one user imposing his will with zero consensus or support behind it, can not continue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue has been discussed extensively on article talk page, including a Third Opinion.

How do you think we can help?

By forming an consensus on how the article should be presented.

Opening comments by Kpalion

I am not sure what Fry's issue is exactly – is it the shade of the upper stripe in the diagram of the Polish flag? The file type (PNG vs SVG)? The use of photographs rather than diagrams in the infobox? Perhaps all three, so I'll try to address each, one by one.

Color variant	Flag without coat of arms	Flag with coat of arms
"Statutory white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland (normative).svg	Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG
"Pure white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland.svg	State Flag of Poland.svg

1. The article currently uses two diagrams to illustrate the designs of two variants of the Polish flag (with and without the coat of arms). They are based on legal specifications of the flag and national colors. The latter are given in the CIELUV color space which may be good for dyeing fabric, but needs to be converted to sRGB for the purpose of display on a computer screen. Both the legal source and method of conversion are provided in footnotes to the article. Fry insists on adding diagrams which (for purely aesthetic reasons, as I understand) replace the "statutory" white in the upper stripe with the brighter web white (or "pure white"), which may look better on the screen, but is not grounded in reliable sources.
2. I have no problem with the SVG format as such. However, I lack the software necessary to produce such files. I would be more than happy, if someone with such means could convert File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG to SVG (keeping the statutory shades of white and red, as well as the subtle shadings of the eagle's plumage!) and upload the result to Commons.
3. One of Fry's arguments in previous discussions was that the diagram with statutory colors does not represent what the Polish flag really looks like. This is true, but the other diagrams do not represent it either. A flag, by definition, is a piece of dyed fabric hoisted on a pole or mast, that is, a physical object, whose appearance depends on lighting, wind and other external factors, not an abstract assembly of geometrical figures. The best way to illustrate a class of physical objects in an encylcopaedic article is by using a photograph of one or more real-life specimens. — Kpalion 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Poland discussion

This is certainly an interesting dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, this doesn't mean I have special powers or my opinion means more than others. It simply means I'll try provide an impartial view and mediate the discussion as fairly as possible. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can open the discussion. Cabe6403 09:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem, Kpalion (and anybody else who isn't quite sure), is your problem with the pure-white SVGs. I see absolutely no valid reason to not use them on the article, and in fact the agreement as I remember it, was to have them there, and use the ones with grey in this subsection. It was like that for a while when I was last there in 2010, and then after that you started removing them and imposing a supposed "compromise" of the photos in the infobox and grey flags in the subsection, but the white SVGs nowhere to be seen. I can't find ANYBODY who has agreed to that compromise, it's something you made up! There simple is zero consensus at this time for you to forcibly exclude the white SVGs completely, and impose photographs of the Polish flags in the infobox, something that is done NOWHERE else on this project. It's unorthodox, it's not really adding anything to the article to do it that way, and it's at the force of one user with no backing. I want a consensus. Naturally I would like that consensus to be in favour of the standard practice on every other article, and to use the SVGs that Commons provides, but overall I don't care which way the consensus goes as long as there is one. I can't stand by and continue to allow you to treat this article like you own it and force, through edit warring, your way. That's my problem, I've made it clear, and I'll step aside and see how this goes. If anybody wants me to answer a direct question, naturally I will do so. Fry1989 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Fry. I guess one thing we can agree on for now is that there is currently no consensus and we both want to achieve one, which is promising.

Cabe, do you have any questions? — Kpalion 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this right, the dispute centres around two related points:

1. Whether or not to include just the grey flag or the grey flag and the white flag
2. Whether to use the image files (format makes no real difference so I'm ignoring any .SVG or .PNG debates) or photographs of the flat

Is that a fair assessment of the issue? Also, folks lets focus on the content and not the conduct. It can be difficult to separate them but if you find yourself writing about the other individual take a moment and refocus on the content at hand. Cabe6403 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Roughly. Kpalion hasn't been able to provide a single image image of a flag using the supposed "statutory colours", every single flag I've ever found including those in government use have pure white, not the hideous grey that Kpalion is imposing. And even if he did, that by itself isn't a reason to exclude the white flags altogether. That what the original agreement when I was last there, to have both. Quite frankly, conduct is part of the problem, even if you want it to be separated from the content part of the issue. Should we allow a single article to stick out of the norm because of the dissatisfaction of one user? Should that user be allowed to impose his dissatisfaction with zero consensus for it? I believe those are valid questions to ask, and they have a bearing on the direction this discussion may go.

Kpalion's arguments are also weak at best. He argues that a flag by it's very nature is a physical piece of fabric. While that is true, that doesn't mean we're going to start putting photos in the infobox of every flag article we have, which is practically the precedent that his argument would set whether or not that is his intention. He also argues that the grey on the files he wants to use is "statutory white" while the SVGs use an "aesthetically pleasing web white". The problem with that argument is there is no such thing. White is a pure colour, along with black. As soon as you change it in any way, it becomes a shade of a different colour. In this case it has become grey, but if you added some red it would become a shade of pink, and so on. Fry1989 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the definition of white. There is only one white, any presence of any other colour means it is no longer pure white. I see someone previously linked to a 'shades of white' article but those are not pure white and could be describes as 'very light x' where x is the mixed colour. Calling them "cream white" is simply a naming convention rather than the actual colour.

In terms of the definition of a flag. A flag (the item) is a piece (or multiple pieces) of fabric dyed and stitched together. However this article is not about the flag (the item) but is about the flag (the emblem). An emblem is a design which the physical flag is based off. The two are distinctly separate. In this case The Flag of Poland is about the non-physical entity that is the symbolic emblem of the country of Poland. It is not about the physical representation of that flag as a piece of cloth. I think an important distinction needs to be made there. Cabe6403 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point is that whatever diagrams of the Polish flag we use, they must be based on reliable sources. The "statutory white"/"grey" image is based on specifications provided in Polish law. The "pure white" image does not seem to be based on any reliable source. Unless a source for the latter is provided, I can't see how it can be used anywhere in the article. This is a matter of Misplaced Pages policy, so I suggest that we settle on this first and only then move on to discuss other issues, such as the use of photographs in the infobox. — Kpalion 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the above before reading Cabe's comment, so now I'm responding to Cabe. The law on Polish national symbols does not use your, Fry's, mine or anybody else's definition of white; it uses its own definition of white (as well as its own definition of red), expressed in trichromatic coordinates in the CIELUV color space. We really should refrain from arguing about what we personally think is the correct definition of white and focus on the definition used in the source.

The same source is also pretty clear in its definition of a flag: "The national flag of the Republic of Poland is a rectangular band of fabric in the colors of the Republic of Poland hoisted on a mast." — Kpalion 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I have stated, the Polish Government doesn't even obey the supposed setting for the white, not that reliable if you ask me. Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour? Any settings of the specific shades are statutes and not laws. If the primary law says white, there is only one white. That is simply a fact, no matter what some government official thinks white includes.

Look, as I pointed out before, I have no problem with both the pure white SVGs and the files with the so-called "statutory white" being on the article, that's what I agreed to back in 2010. The simplest solution would have been to leave it at that, but Kpalion simply won't "allow" the pure white files to be anywhere on that page. We could easily have the pure white SVGs in the infobox, like everywhere else, and then Kpalion could write a subsection about the "statutory colours" and have the images with those settings next to it. What is the problem with that? Fry1989 23:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry makes a lot of arguments that are, frankly, irrelevant. What is relevant is that he does not provide any reliable sources to back his claims, which is required by Misplaced Pages's core policies (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research). There is a detailed official, legal specification of the Polish flag, yet Fry seems to believe he knows better what the Polish flag should look like. Further discussion becomes pretty much pointless in this situation.

And to answer Fry's specific question: "Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour?" The Polish law in question effectively says: "the flag of Poland is white and red, where "white" and "red" are defined as..." Polish parliament in its wisdom decided to define "white" as something that you call grey. It may have just as well defined "white" as blue and "red" as green. And you'd just have to live with it. Misplaced Pages's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors" (WP:V). — Kpalion 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant according to whom? YOU???? The person who has completely failed at gaining consensus in practically 3 years for how he wants the article and has reverted to edit warring to force it the way he wants as if he owns the article? You have no right to do that, and lie about your changes saying they're a "compromise" that nobody seems to have agreed to. Do you have any users who agreed to have the photographs in the infobox as you repeatedly say is a compromise solution? Do you have ANY users who agree to the exclusion of the white files from the article altogether, even though they are used everywhere else on this project to represent Poland? No, I don't think you do. What is irrelevant is what you want, unless you can get consensus to back it up. If your arguments are so relevant and strong compared to mine as you suggest, why in 3 long years has nobody agreed with you? Even after a ThirdO and all these years on that talk page, nobody has sided with you. Half a dozen users have reverted your changes, which would such the actual consensus is against you. It doesn't matter if you have a million sources for what you want, if you have zero consensus for it, you have no right to impose it. Misplaced Pages is guided by consensus and agreement, not the will and imposition of a single user. If consensus is formed here against your changes, it is you who will have to live with it. Fry1989 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are 204 countries in this world. We have atleast double that number in flag articles when you count subnational territories. They all follow a common outline here on Misplaced Pages, consisting of an infobox with an SVG digital illustration of the flag. Kpalion's argument that "A flag is, by definition, a piece of fabric hanging on a pole - a physical obejct, not an imaginary colored rectangle. The best way to represent the look of a physical object in an encyclopedia is a photograph of one or more samples. The place of diagrams is in the Design section." completely fails the test of reasoning. There is no rule against photos of flags on the articles, in fact it is a common practice BUT it is not done in the infobox. Flag of Poland should not be the "exception to the rule"

Kpalion also says "The sources for the statutory color scheme and explanation of their conversion to RGB for the purpose of creating diagrams for Misplaced Pages are already in the article. Good, then why is he unwilling to have File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg and File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG next to that subsection to illustrate what the Government statute says in it's context, while having the SVGs (for which there still remains zero consensus for exclusion) in the infobox as is the set out practice on every other flag article that exists? It's a very simple solution and the one I recommend. It is not unreasonable, it does not demand the exclusion of one or the other as Kpalion is trying to do, and it allows readers to see both. Fry1989 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for Fry: One of your main arguments is that the usual practice on flag articles is to have an SVG of the flag in the infobox. Are you aware that File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg is an SVG, and although I understand that we don't have an SVG of the flag with the coat of arms and the "statutory white" colour, there is no particular reason why one couldn't be created. CarrieVS (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm aware of that, it has ".svg" at the end of it. However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours, so I group the two together when I'm referring to them. And even if there was, this problem would remain. The Polish Government does not obey their own statutes, Kpalion knows this because he tried to make the ridiculous argument that the Polish Government could decree that red was green and I would have to live with it, when we all know if the Polish Government tried to do that, they'd be laughed at. There is absolutely no reason to not have the pure-white files in the infobox, and the grey ones in an appropriate sub-section that discusses and explains to the reader about the colour statutes and how they're not always followed. We have other articles on various subjects that say "the authority says it has to be this but it's often something else", that would be so simple and easy and explain what the situation is. What is wrong with doing that? Why is one user being allowed to railroad this article and personally ban two images from it which are used everywhere else to represent Poland? It's inconsistent, it's not backed by consensus, and it's not helpful to the article either educationally or aesthetically. Fry1989 02:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Woah! I understand it must be very frustrating, but this thread isn't the place to vent. No-one is being allowed to ban any images from anything; if that were the case, we wouldn't be discussing it to try and come to an agreement. If we're going to get anywhere, we need to stick to calmly (easier said than done I know, but please try) discussing the content issue.

"However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours" - but there's no reason why someone can't create one (it sounds simple enough to do), if we were to agree that that was what we wanted (I'm not saying I think it is; I have no opinion either way). So I think we need to separate the argument for having SVGs in the infobox and the ones about which colour SVGs to have. That's all I was saying.

I think it is best to discuss one point at a time. I think we can sort out the SVG issue quite easily; the difficult one is the colour issue. So let's focus on that one. And let's remember, whichever one we put in the infobox, it would be perfectly possible to put the other one in the subsection about the colour statutes not always being followed. It's not a question of using the pure white ones in the infobox or we can't use them at all. CarrieVS (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First, Kpalion has been allowed for nearly 3 years, due to nobody paying attention and raising the issue until now, to forcibly exclude two images that he disagrees with from an article. I call that a "ban", he wont let them on there, every though they are used everywhere else where a graphic of the Polish flags is required, and multiple users and IPs have made the attempt to place them on the article. Second, there is in fact a problem with creating a grey SVG of the state flag with the arms on it. This problem existed on Coat of arms of Poland, though mostly just smouldering embers than a real dispute. We have File:Herb Polski.svg, which is an excellent SVG recreation of the Polish coat of arms which matches many Polish sources to a T. However there was one or two user/IPs which preferred File:Coat of arms of Poland-official3.png and whom claimed our SVG could never match up to it. It is simply impossible, short of being a SVG graphical genius (which I am not), to be able to do all those gradients and shadings effectively on the SVG coat of arms. Third, I'm the one proposing we use both sets on the article and it was what I originally agreed to. It is Kpalion who wishes to force the use of only one and exclude the other. You have the two of us mistaken. Lastly, I'm not venting, I'm stating the facts. Fry1989 04:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I expressed myself badly. My apologies (and I promise not to edit at 3am again). Let me try and clarify.

• Whatever might have gone on for the past three years, no-one is being - present tense - allowed to ban anything. We're trying to come to an agreement, and both sides are being heard fairly.
• I never said, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that you wanted to exclude one colour from the article entirely. I am well aware that you have proposed having them both. But you seemed to be arguing that the only choice is between having both (with pure white in the infobox) or only having one. But it's perfectly possibly to have both, with the other in the infobox (regardless of whether anyone's proposed it yet, it's certainly possible to do).
• Perhaps 'vent' was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that the tone of your comments seems very emotional, and you have been tending to dwell on behaviour, on what's happened in the past, and on other things besides the actual content issue at stake. We will stand much more chance of getting somewhere if we speak calmly and stick to discussing the content. In particular, we do not discuss user conduct at this noticeboard.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but the discussion has moved on now, so let's put the misunderstanding behind us. CarrieVS (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't use photos of flags in the infobox, see flag of China for an example. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the precedent of every other flag article I'm replacing the photo's in the infobox with the "computerized versions" which are already in the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree with CarrieVS that we should stick to the issue of "grey-white" vs "pure-white" flags first, as this is the most difficult and contentious problem here. The other questions, of file types and choice of images in the infobox, can be fairly easily resolved once we are done with the colors.

Secondly, I admit that I shouldn't have used the word "compromise" when talking about the my proposed solution, as clearly there was no compromise. It was, at best, a failed attempt at a compromise. For the record, a similar solution to the one I propose is used at pl:Flaga Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, but obviously a consenus reached in Polish Misplaced Pages is not binding here.

Thirdly, whatever consensus we arrive at here, it must not override Misplaced Pages policy. It is simply not in our power to trump Misplaced Pages's sacrosanct core policies. We cannot use images created through original research; we need reliable sources to back them up. I ask Fry not to take it personally when I say his unsourced claims are irrelevant. So are mine, if they are not backed by reliable sources. — Kpalion 07:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can override Misplaced Pages policy and president if there is some compelling reason to make an expiation to the policy/president. To take an extreme example, if the only images of the flag we had were those photos then WP:IAR would override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and the precedent of every other flag article, and allow the use of those photos in the infobox. I doubt that overriding policy will be necessary in this case, president might be bent a little tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I am in agreement that we shouldn't use the photos. I was about to reply to your previous comment mentioning WP:IGNOREALLRULES but I see Emmette has beaten me to it. Misplaced Pages policy is based on consensus and sometimes it doesn't quite match up to what consensus actually is, in that case WP:IAR comes into play. Regarding the white/grey debate, this one is, perhaps, harder to define but I would likely come down on the side of using the pure white svgs in the infobox and having the grey/white differences explained in a subsection as Fry has suggested. This seems to me to be the best way of representing the flag in this case. Cabe6403 08:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cabe, I'm aware that IAR is a Misplaced Pages policy, but you will need a really good argument to override the no original research policy. I agree that the "pure white" images look pretty, but they are not based in reliable external sources. Unless they are, in which may I ask Fry or anybody else to please provide them?

And Emmette, what president are you talking about? Misplaced Pages does not have a president as far as I know. — Kpalion 10:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe Emmette is referring to Precedent. Here's some quick suggestions:

I agree about WP:COMMONNAME; unless there is a guideline that says otherwise, I would be inclined to say that the one in the infobox ought to be in the commonly used colours. But I believe Kpalion's main point is that we haven't got a reliable source for the fact that pure white is usually used. So the question I think we need to ask is, does 'the colour of the Polish flag as it is usually used' fall under WP:common knowledge? If so, we may not need a source. CarrieVS (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that it does, as the information page lists "plain sight observations that can be made from public property" under Acceptable examples of common knowledge. CarrieVS (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A very good point Carrie, I think that is pretty much the end of that. What I propose is the pure white .SVGs go in the infobox, the grey images and the photos can go in a section mentioning the difference between the stated colours and the flown colours. Is this acceptable to all parties? Cabe6403 13:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: List of Polish flags also contains these photos. I've had a look through about ~10 or so other List of X flags articles and can find no equivalent so I'd propose removing them from that article also Cabe6403 13:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across this thread. May I draw to attention that heraldry uses the word argent (silver) rather than teh word Niveus (latin) or blanc (french). In all cases, the heralds actually use white. Martinvl (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Replying to Cabe: U.S. and British government websites may be reliable sources for design details of U.S. and Union flags, but they are hardly more reliable than Polish law when it comes to the design of the Polish flag. Incidentally, the articles Flag of the United States and Flag of the United Kingdom use their respecitve countries' legal acts as sources for flag designs; they do not use other countries' government websites and for good reason. And even if we were to use the flag images you linked to (CIA factbook and FCO travel advice), then which one? You do notice that theses two images have quite different shades of red?

Replying to CarrieVS: WP:CK says that "facts about which Wikipedians themselves cannot form a rough consensus" "should most definitely not be left to common knowledge without citations." There is clearly no consensus here, so we cannot do without citations.

A question to all: nobody here seems to have a problem with the statutory shade of red in the illustrations. Why is the legal specification OK for the red stripe, but not OK for the white stripe? Is there any reason for struggling to replace the statutory white with web white other than "I don't like it"? — Kpalion 17:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kpalion mentions the Polish-language Misplaced Pages's equivalent of this article. I would just like to point out, in case nobody noticed, that PL-Wiki's article uses this image with the caption "Polish national flag pattern published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Poland.". The gazetted image appears to use pure white. Whatever it uses, it's certainly not the grey seen on File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg. Is not the Government's own gazette a source? The article also has a subsection explaining the colours issue in great length. This is actually very close to what I have been suggesting: have the pure whites in the infobox, and the greys in an appropriate subsection written by Kpalion which explains the different colours set out in multiple sources. Cabe6403 appears to be in agreement. Fry1989 20:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But what is it that we don't have consensus on? I know we don't have consensus about which version should go in the infobox, but that's not what I am suggesting is common knowledge. There are two separate questions:

• Whether, in the case that they are different, the officially correct version or the more commonly used one should be in the infobox. That isn't a matter of sources or common knowledge, but of the style of the article.
• Whether the "pure white" version of the flag is more commonly used than the "statutory white" version. This is what I suggested might fall under WP:common knowledge. Do you also disagree about that part? CarrieVS (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand your two points, but I'll try and answer as best I can. I think that the pure whites should go in the infobox, because they're the most common both here on the project and IRL, and because common knowledge is that the Polish flag is a bicolour of red and white. The "statutory" ones should have a special subsection that discusses what the government statue says, as well as any erroneous varieties. That would be in common with the PL-Wiki article which has a subsection discussing not just the white, but also the red. It would also acknowledge that the "statutory white" is not common knowledge, nor common practice. Fry1989 23:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The question was actually to Kpalion, but it's good to have your answer too.

Kpalion, what about you? Do we also have no consensus on whether "pure white" is more commonly used? CarrieVS (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Astronomy

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Devanampriya (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• Kishorekumar_62 (talk · contribs)
• SteveMcCluskey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• Nationalist pov pushing editor insists on framing contested theory as scientific fact and refuses to allocate article space to mainstream academic views that challenge this theory.

• Insists on eurocentric narrative to article (i.e.irrelevant mentions of Alexander of Macedon). Article topic is on Indian astronomy, but most of the article is now on theory of greek influence on indian astronomy.

• Good faith attempt at compromise failed--editor actually started debate by threatening to report and by bringing up stale 5 year old unrelated disputes.

• He refuses to give space to discuss mainstream academic works that challenge his preferred theory (developed by now deceased scholar), even if article mentions "minority view". Not even a sentence allowed for a growing "minority view" that challenged editor's preferred scholar in his own time. He attacks Indian scholars as fringe, and doesn't respond to the existence of western scholars who support this minority view.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Good faith attempt at discussing and negotiating a fair and accurate consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indian_astronomy#Indian_and_Greek_Astronomy

How do you think we can help?

• Advise whether or not even small space (few sentences) can be given to discuss respected minority academic views given clear uncertainty of majority theory.

• Advise whether uncertainty of theory must be included in article wording.

• Define NPOV to clarify acceptable article structure.

Opening comments by Athenean

I actually support this request, though I must deplore Devanampriya's use of epithets ("nationalist", "eurocentric"). He is similarly hostile in the talkpage discussion, having called me a "nationalist" many times, and made all kinds of bad faith allegations, e.g. that I am socking etc...As far as the subject at hand, he says I "refuse to give space to discuss mainstream academic sources", but that is actually not true, I am only against the inclusion of fringe sources like the well known Subhash Kak and the equally fringe B.G. Sidarth . It's also brazenly untrue that I am against Indian sources, in fact I added this scholarly Indian source to the article , and he knows this. He derisively refers to David Pingree, the leading scholar of Indian astronomy as "a deceased scholar", while insisting on using a 19th century priest named Anthony Burgess as a source. This combination of hostility and intransigence makes me feel that formal dispute resolution is the only way to resolve this. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I will be busy the next few days and may not edit frequently, but I do intent to pursue this process fully. Athenean (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kishorekumar_62

This dispute pertains to one section of this page, viz. "Global Discourse". I saw that section pretty much said that Indians borrowed their astronomy from the Greeks. I investigated and found that there is much debate on this matter in academic circles. I found that the Ebenezer Burgess, the translator of Surya Siddhnatha (1860) had debated this point with his editor William Whitney, with Burgess for and Whitney against an Indian origin. A hundred years later, there appeared a series of articles by David Pingree in JHA in support of a Greek (and Mesopotamian) origin. Pingree's conclusions have been challenged by Van Der Waerden and Roger Billard in favor of an independent development of Indian astronomy. I have discussed this extensively in the talk page.

I believe that Misplaced Pages should not hold a brief for one or the other side when an opinion is debated in academic circles. Both sides should be presented. Further, to deny that such an debate exists would be even more misleading.

One proof of the existence of such debate, I present below:

"Recently, two treatise have been published, which will be quoted as (B) and (P): (B) Roger Billard, L'astronomie Indienne... (P) David Pingree, "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India"... The general view of Indian epicyclic astronomy developed in these two treatises are radically difference and cannot be reconciled. If Pingree is right, Billard is wrong, and conversely." - "Two Treatise on Indian Astronomy", B L Van der waerden, Zurich University, Journal for the History of Astronomy, xi (1980):

The same Journal issue also printed a rebuttal from Pingree, which starts as follows:

"Van der waerden presents himself as an arbiter in the controversy concerning Indian astronomy between Roger Billard and myself..." Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SteveMcCluskey

I have only minor interest in this page, which I follow because of my interest in the history of astronomy and have no wish to get involved in a lengthy dispute, but I will briefly add my understanding of the dispute here. When I saw the accusation of a "Nationalist pov pushing editor" I totally agreed, until I saw that the request for dispute resolution had been entered by an editor who, in my opinion, had been the editor chiefly involved in nationalist pov pushing on this article. The underlying issue here is the extent of influences on Indian astronomy, which a minority of nationalist Indian scholars tend to reject, while most historians, of all nationalities, see a complex web of interactions.

The article is plagued by attempts to insert minority opinions, without any comment on their level of acceptance by the scholarly community. Even more seriously, User:Devanampriya has frequently deleted mainstream scholarly material dealing with Greek and other influence on Indian astronomy in a pattern that seems to be edit warring.

In sum, this looks like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ninthabout

I don't know how this process works, but I would like to offer my two cents on the Sidharth source. I have never edited the Indian astronomy article, but I have been a frequent editor of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. According to Misplaced Pages, a source is reliable if it is from an expert in a field, and published in an academic book or journal. Sidharth is not an expert in history, and his book was published by a New Age pseudoscience publisher. I have said this on the talk page, but I'll repeat it here. Just take a quick glance at the About Us page of the publisher, "Inner Traditions". It shows works like Pyramid Power, a book on Pyramidology, The Science of Getting Rich, a self help book from the so-called "New Thought Movement" (that inspired the widely criticized New Age film The Secret (2006 film)), The Estrogen Alternative a book on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and The Mayan Code, a book on "Mayanism", and others. Their list of published books nearly matches the List of pseudosciences. There are much better sources about Indian astronomy by reputable scholars. There's no reason at all that this book should be used.--Ninthabout (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hell in a Bucket

I also have minor involvement in this dispute, my first of which was from a protection board request I came across. There has been plenty of bad faith accusations by Devanampriya] and an apparent inability to understand that this is a collaborative project where anyone (regardless of block records which he apparently thinks is a big deal and disqualifies an opinion) is welcome to engage in dispute resolution or issue discussion. I think that he may have a better mindset if he disengages for a while rather then edit war "restoring the status quo" that he has apparently set all by his lonesome. I think a little good faith in this would go a long way, rather then making accusations that editors have canvassed for others maybe he can focus on the content and not the contributors which is a key component in our NPA and AGF policies. I think that when he also realizes he doesn't WP:OWN the page we can getter results. I do believe all viewpoints, especially sourced ones should be included in the article to make sure that it is better rounded, accusations of euro centrism and nationalism at least for the moment seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian Astronomy discussion

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to help with this issue. I have no special authority or power, but I am interested in helping you all find a good resolution. I'm pretty busy today, but let me read the article and the above statements, and then tomorrow I'll post some thoughts & questions. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be some sourcing issues mentioned. I don't recall them having been brought to RSN recently and suggest that that might be a way forward. On the 19th century debate, for example, I think RSN regulars will suggest that this should ideally be taken from a late 20th century or 21st century text that covers that debate. Going straight to the 19th century authors would seem to be a use of primary sources that could too easily lead into bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. The issue here is how the article should describe the influence, if any, of Greek astronomy on the development of Indian astronomy. There are some sources that suggest it was major, and others that suggest it was negligible. So, we must decide which sources are reliable, and how both views should be presented in the article. To illustrate the different approaches, here are two versions of the article text (boldface emphasis mine):

Hindu astrology may have been later influenced by Hellenistic astrology during the early centuries of the Common Era, ....By the early centuries of the Common Era, Indo-Greek influence on the Vedanga tradition appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy.

contrasted with

Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy beginning in the 4th century BC and through the early centuries of the Common Era, for example by the Yavanajataka and the Romaka Siddhanta, a Sanskrit translation of a Greek text disseminated from the 2nd century....Greek astronomical ideas began to enter India in the 4th century BC following the conquests of Alexander the Great....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India, where it profoundly influenced the local astronomical tradition.

References which purportedly state the Greek influence include:

• Babylon to Voyager and Beyond: A History of Planetary Astronomy. David Leverington. Cambridge University Press, May 29, 2003 - Science - 568 pages. page 41
• The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. James Evans. Oxford University Press, Oct 1, 1998 - History - 496 pages. Page 393
• Foreign Impact on Indian Life and Culture (c. 326 B.C. to C. 300 A.D.). Satyendra Nath Naskar. Abhinav Publications, Jan 1, 1996 - History - 253 pages. Pages 56-57
• Highlights of Astronomy, Volume 11B: As presented at the XXIIIrd General Assembly of the IAU, 1997. Johannes Andersen Springer, Jan 31, 1999 - Science - 616 pages. page 721
• Pingree, David (1976). "The Recovery of early Greek Astronomy from India". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) vii: 109-123

Sources which may deemphasize the Greek influence include:

• "On Astronomy of Ancient India", Subhash C. Kak, Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(3): 205-221 (1987), by Subhash Kak
• The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's ... By B. G. Sidharth
• http://satyavidya.com/yavanas.htm
• Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 43, 1874
• B. L. Van Der Waerden (1980). "Two Treatises on Indian Astronomy". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) xi: 50-62.
• L’Astronomie indienne - Roger Billard - 1974
• On the originality of Indian Mathematical Astronomy - Raymond Mercier

On a related note, a major issue in the Talk page is whether the term Yavana means Greeks specifically, or could include additional non-Indian persons.

Question for parties - Could the parties pick the two strongest sources from each "side" and provide the quotes from the sources that illustrate the sources' position on this issue? Bear in mind that academic sources are superior to non-academic; modern superior to older; and experts superior to non-experts. Post the quotes here in this DRN case below (keep it brief to avoid copyright violations). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Noleander, as your framed it above, the debate essentially centered around the pingree paradigm of certainty of greek influence pushed by certain parties. The other users as you can see on the talk page, refused a reasonable reframed article structure of pingree (most of "influence" subsection), billard/ohashi/mercier (some), and sidharth/kak/burgess (which would receive little treatment even in our proposal--we clearly said this). Here are the requested quotes (with some additional background points):

Yukio Ohashi is probably the strongest for supporting the Billard theory of uncertainty of this greek influence. Here is the source as well as key quotes:

p.156, “The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.”

p.157: “Astronomy was developed in India in its own way in this period, and established itself as an independent discipline.” And “the classical Siddhanta period was itself rather free from foreign influence”.

Raymond Mercier is useful for explaining the technical reasons for the problems with the prevailing Pingree paradigm:

p.4 "Pingree, faced with these results of Billard continued to argue that Āryabhaṭa must nevertheless have found a way to derive his mean longitudes from earlier, essentially Greek, results.6 He was never willing to accept that Āryabhaṭa, or indeed any other Indian astronomer, had been able to make observations, or had been able to reduce these to obtain such accurate mean longitudes. It is however plainly impossible to create mean longitudes many centuries before the year 500 which could somehow be in such very precise agreement with observations at just this time, but not in neighbouring years."

p.4 “There is, of course, an immensely difficult, and as yet unsolved, historical problem remaining, namely to discover the continuity in the transmission to India of the Greek theoretical framework. It is to be emphasized that the Indian theoretical schemes are different in a number of details from anything known in Greek sources (see Ch. 8.f, above).”

p.18 "For, the synodic differences being in agreement, then this disagreement in the Sun would carry over to the other means. Pingree, it would appear, wants us to ignore this, although it is fundamental to any consideration of whether ot not the Indians copied from a Greek source. There remain still the differences of the order of 1 degree between some of the Greek and Indian synodic differences. The disagreement of about 2 degrees in the Moon (even after correcting Pingree’s arithmetic at this point) just corresponds to the difference 2;44.Finally, in my extension of Billard’s approach, where the optimum meridian is established jointly with the year it is found that for these Indian systems the optimum meridan lies well within India, strongly reinforcing the view that we are dealing with real observational control in India”

p.20 “Billard’s scientific analysis of many canons included the proof that the mean longitudes of the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta were established in the seventh century, and so were certainly the work of Brahmagupta, as he claimed. This destroyed the keystone of Pingree’s reconstruction.”

p.20 "Pingree has always been adamant that the Indian astronomers never seriously carried out observations, and in this he has simply followed the consensus, which goes back to Colebrooke. He never attempted to meet head on either Billard’s argument, or my extension of it to the meridian determination. Indeed he simply ignores that level of scientific investigation."

In essence, this represents the obvious uncertainty associated with pingree's theories (which he drew from the colonial period)--the crux of our dispute.

In order to touch on theories of reverse influence (indian influence on greek astronomy), Sidharth is the strongest, given that he is an astronomer, has a ph.d. in computational physics, director general of a respected planetarium, and has presented multiple international papers on astronomer that have been well received (his views are distinct from Ohashi/Mercier who simply argue uncertainty regarding greek influence, validate Billard's work (which Van der Waerden also did), and for pointing out the problem's with Pingree).

Sidharth's primary use however was in supporting claims of hindu astronomical theories on the spherical shape of the earth--at one time proposed by western scholars such as Ebenezer Burgess, but now recently renewed by Kak and Sidharth. Sidharth's inclusion would naturally be prefaced as a distinct spectrum of view outside the present academic mainstream (we've said this repeatedly), and would have been limited to a sentence or two (sidenote: his work uses endnotes rather than footnotes). I won't provide quotes because the two main sources are ohashi and mercier (who challenge pingree's greek influence certainty paradigm). Sidharth merely provides an ancillary view in what is actually a complex spectrum of academic views. He makes for useful reading in his short intro (p.15) and on the subchapter specifically on Contributions to Scientific thought regarding hindus and greeks(starting on p.34)

I would also like to note that Mitra (asia society journal) is useful for understanding the controversy surrounding the colonial interpretation of the sanskrit word yavana. His comprehensive, multi-page analysis of it, has not been matched in other sources we have seen. As you can see from the puranic encyclopedia I provided on the talk page--yavana traditionally referred to subcontinental peoples who warred with and were conquered by hindu mythological figures. It was later used for foreigners including various middle eastern peoples, caliphate arabs, greco-romans, and foreigners in general--that's why it must be treated with caution. I won't provide quotes, to avoid take up too much more space, but I just wanted to point out the importance of us understanding how this word has been stretched for questionable historical purposes due to lack of understanding. Hope this all helps--thank you. Regards Devanampriya (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Devanampriya: Could you provide the academic credentials/background/specialty of Ohashi and Mercier? Also could you provide brief quotes from Billard which summarize his position (translated into English, if necessary). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noleander. I think Van Der Waerden's statements about Pingree are criticism of Pingree's approach viz. Pingree's analysis of Aryabatha's methodology and they do not constitute a rebuttal of the Greek influence on Indian astronomy. In addition much ado has been made about the term "Yavana" as not meaning "Ionian" and, by extension, "Greek". Well, let us consider the following writings by Van Der Waerden et al.:

<ref name="WaerdenHuber1973">{{cite book|author1=B L Van Der Waerden|author2=Peter Huber|title=Science Awakening II|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=S_T6Pt2qZ5YC&pg=PA305|accessdate=18 February 2013|date=31 December 1973|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-90-01-93103-2|page=305|quote=Right at the beginning of our section on the Vasistha-Siddantha we have quoted a passage from the astrological poem Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja. The word Yavana in the title of the poem means Ionian, or Greek in general. According to Pingree the poem goes back to a Greek astrological composition written in Alexandria in the first half of the second century AD., which was translated into Sanskrit by Yavanesvara about 150. Another Greek astrological text was also translated in the second century. It seems that later Indian horoscopy was based on these two Sanskrit translations.}}</ref>

From the horse's Van Der Waerden's mouth, we have conclusive proof that indeed he: a. agrees with Pingree about Greek influence on Indian horoscopy and b. states that "Yavana" does indeed mean "Greek". I trust since the opposition find Van Der Waerden to be such a reliable source the matter may be settled. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  08:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Also please see collapsed section for:

As an additional comment, expressions of the type (in italics): ...appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy. are typical fillers, full of original research and weasel words with the intent of minimising the majority academic opinion and maximising doubt about it at the same time. And this does not include the complete disappearance of any mention of Yavanajataka from the edit of the opposition, despite the overwhelming reliably-sourced academic evidence supporting its inclusion in the article. However, unlike the opposition, I am not interested in assigning any epithets to the practitioners of such editing. Δρ.Κ.  11:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr K: could you (or anyone) provide some brief quotes from Pingree which summarize his position? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Syrian civil war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• FunkMonk (talk · contribs)
• Lothar von Richthofen (talk · contribs)
• Zombiecapper (talk · contribs)
• Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs)
• Sopher99 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

No change perceived as having a negative impact on the rebel cause can be entered into the article. Being the graphic depiction of the conflict, the infobox is the focus of the WP:STONEWALLING:

• Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box. A graphic representation of Israeli military actions against the Assad faction would obviously cast a bad light on the rebels.
• In spite of their fighting both the rebels and the government in this conflict, the Kurds must be kept on the rebel side in the box.
• Similarly, non-combatants like Saudi Arabia and Qatar must also be listed in the rebel column, not once - but twice.

In short, combatants shelling and bombing in Syrian territory are excluded, while non-combatants are included for the rebels. Kurds fighting the rebels are kept in the rebels' column. The inclusion of huge, pointless lists of "sinister" Syrian government agencies also cannot be amended. The POV is so thick one can barely see the article.

The cornucopia of ever-changing, irrelevant "excuses" is also a thing of wonder. Arbitrary declarations of supposed "undue weight" and proclamations regarding the Kurds' "true allies" abound. Misleading "precedents" were brought forth as well, articles on wars with four or five or six warring sides which always use a simplified two-column infobox out of necessity (the template only provides for three columns) - but all three-sided conflicts like the Syrian civil war naturally use three columns. All of these essentially appear to be without significance, as none have any impact on the simple fact that the Kurdish faction, fighting rebels(!), is listed in the rebels' column; or that Israel is sourced as a side-combatant in the conflict. -- Director (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A couple ultimately-pointless RfCs. On the first occasion the consensus was clearly in favor of amending the infobox (9 users in support, 3 opposed), but participants were simply edit-warred into the ground (primarily by Sopher99). Most recently, frustrated users posted a second RfC which unfortunately garnered input from only three users, two of whom (Knowledgekid87, Zombiecapper) supported the stonewalled amendments. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved input on the three main issues would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by FunkMonk

I think the issue about the third row is the most urgent one. (Following copied from a RfC) Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions. There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor.

Opening comments by Lothar von Richthofen

Previous Kurd/PYD-related discussions: Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_15#RV_Kurdish_from_infobox, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_16#PKK-PYD, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_16#Assad.2FAnti-Assad_forces (note FT's position), Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_17#Third_row_for_Kurds, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_17#"Opposition", Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18#kurds_(third_column?), Archive_18#Kurds_as_combatant_#3_again, Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_18#fourth_column, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Organized_edit-warring

Will post statement later. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zombiecapper

Firstly, thank you Director for finally initiating these proceedings.

The current combatant configuration of the info box should remain as two columns.

Unlike other preceding Misplaced Pages civil war articles, the anti-assad factions are extremely fractured. There is no clear governing structure. Although all the factions have one key objective - to overthrow the Assad regime.

If we were to grant the PYD an individual column, a precedent would then be set to provide other (SNC non-aligned) factions autonomy, by way of providing them with their own column. We could easily end up with four or five combatants, I am sure everyone agrees that would be hopeless.

To the extent of what this civil war is about....it is a battle between two different options...two different paths for the Syrian people. One path leads to a continuation of the neo-baathist Assad republic or two a "Absent Assad non neo-baathist republic."

Therefore, I submit that we have the following combatant titles (bold and break-line, absent of flag and/or insignia): Government (Representing the Assad government and their allies) and Insurgents or Anti-Assad Forces (with all the factions/insignia listed directly below in order of political and military influence within that camp).

On the subject of Israel, currently the air strike has not yet been acknowledged...the Israelis governments intentions, all though strongly suspected, remain to be confirmed by senior leaders. It should not yet hold a place in the info box. User talk:Zombiecapper.

Opening comments by Futuretrillionaire

So I guess the rfc failed and one of the parties decided open up this. Anyways, the current infobox in the article is based on the model used in articles such as Iraq War, Mexican Drug War, and War on Terror, in which the government and its supporters are put in one column and the insurgents/irregulars are put in the other, with a note included that indicates that there is also fighting between insurgent groups. The Kurds have played a very minor role in the conflict, and there is no source defining the scope of this civil war as a 3-way battle. Therefore, giving a 3rd column for the Kurds is completely undue weight. I don't see any problems with the current model, and I don't see any need to screw it up.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources like this ("Both sides committing war crimes in Syria") clearly indicate that there are two sides in this conflict, not three. The arguments for a 3rd column are based on WP:OR, and not backed by reliable sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sopher99

The infobox Should remain as two columns. Adding a third row is undue weight as the civil war is beyond overwhelmingly a battle between the opposition and the government (in casualties, combatant numbers, territory, and reliable sources). There is a not a single reliable media source describing this as a three way fight. The PYD leader in fact has described the Kurdish factions as being friendly with the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have the solution of putting a double line between the rebels and the Kurds, plus a note linking to the Kurdistan conflict. If this doesn't satisfy, then it is best to keep the kurds out of the infobox and elaborate on them in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of Israel, it should not be added anymore than Lebanon/Jordan/Turkey all of which has several casualties but are not considered combatants in the civil war. Mainly because they are not fighting eachother. They are participants in incidental events, not belligerents. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by EllsworthSK

Frankly, I am not really sure what is this about. Is this about Kurds in third column or about infobox in general as listed in dispute overview? I´ll take a shot with later and make these points
1, Israel shelled also FSA position in Golan, in response to that FSA released a statement warning Israel from meddling into Syrian affairs listing them as combatant on side of rebels is POV of POVs since no direct support was ever proven and is only propagated by Iran and Syrian gov
2, Frankly, sticking the support countries in the infobox seems counter-productive to me, especially given that we don´t know if support which goes to jihadists in Syria is from Gulf private donors or Gulf government (KSA, Qatar). Also listing countries twice, I don´t see much point in it. If it was up to me I´d remove it outright and keep it in the article only.
3, Unnecessary many combatants under government section. Agreed - would keep only army, Shabiha and foreign militants. Lijan militias are widely unreported and unknown, Jays al-Shabi was first heard from US government and that´s that, mukhabarat is not direct combatant etc. As for Iran, from what I read their main role is in support, logistic and training not in direct combat. Remove or move to support section.
4,Kurds - well I can see it from both sides and I don´t think that any of them is explicitly wrong. There are many aspects and I am really on line in this case. I will just simply stick with a consensus. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war discussion

David Bergman (journalist)

Policy is clear, and alternative sources have been found.

Jesus,Argument from silence

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Argument from silence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Humanpublic (talk · contribs)
• History2007 (talk · contribs)
• Jeppiz (talk · contribs)
• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Original research in Jesus article: editors (mainly History2007) classifying some facts as a type of historical method, editors classifying the work of other sources as a type of argument/method. Antagonistic editing: editors (mainly History2007) deleting valid sources, defending sources they haven't even read, probably (not certain) inserting sources they haven't read Refusal to collaborate: Editors (History2007) adding sources not easily verified (books) and then refusing to provide the source text. Personal attacks: frivolous accusations of dishonesty on Talk page, frivolous accusations of sockpuppetting, frivolous accusations on my Talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Admin noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

No idea. Never done this before. How about enforcing the rules?

Opening comments by History2007

Opening comments by Jeppiz

Opening comments by Seb az86556

Jesus,Argument from silence discussion

1. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/allege?q=allege

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