This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North Shoreman (talk | contribs) at 12:25, 14 September 2013 (→Anthony Johnson (colonist) discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Current disputes

Anti-Serb sentiment

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anti-Serb sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• Joy (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A group of users think that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment (based on source which I believe is outdated politically motivated primary source). This view is also based on WP:CONSISTENCY - because no other article (link to navigation template with 45 of them) on hatred toward an ethnic group does not have criticism section.

I proposed not to deny or justify hatred in Controversy section but to present explanations in one or couple of sentences within the main body of the article (with no outdated politically motivated primary sources) or to point to articles which provide more context in the See also section.

Peacemaker67 and Joy do not agree.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

To organize discussion based on human common sense, arguments and wikipedia policies without unnecessary personalization, uncivility and fallacy, which would hopefully lead to consensus about this dispute.

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67

I will not be able to enter into this discussion properly until I have access to a real computer (at least five days away). I'm on iPhone, and it just isn't practical. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I will just briefly add that the "group of users" Antidiskriminator alludes to is a group of one. The other two editors that have engaged in this discussion are a registered account that has made a total of two edits (both to the talk page thread in question), and an IP that has made one edit (also to this talk page thread). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I'll put aside the other problems with the article (such as WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, on which I agree with Joy and bobrayner). The central issue here is the means by which we include in the article an examination of how entirely legitimate examples of "Anti-Serb/Serbia sentiment" during WWI (the reaction to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand) and WWII (Hitler's attitude to the Serbs and the genocidal policies and actions of the Ustashe) were woven into a propaganda narrative in the 1980's and 1990's by Slobodan Milošević and his fellow travellers. This propaganda narrative of perpetual Serb victimhood was then used to justify and encourage "all sorts of nastiness" (as Joy puts it) during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Antidiskriminator relies on WP:CONSISTENCY, which has been an inactive proposal since 2006 and on which there was no apparent consensus. A quick look at WT:CONSISTENCY will confirm what the perceived problems with the proposal were, and several editors made cogent observations against the proposal with which I have sympathy. In my view, key amongst them are, "The fact that two different groups of people say two different things is not logically contradictory" and "encyclopedia articles are more like separate stories. Individual stories have consistency--truth relative to them. Taken together, however, they are a jumble of purported facts that don't really have much to do with each other." Whether this article is stylistically consistent with other articles on ethnic hatred is WP:OTHERSTUFF in my view. The actions of Serbs in the past that have contributed to "Anti-Serb sentiment" (such as colonisation of Albanian-speaking areas during the Balkan Wars), and the use of past misdeeds against Serbs to justify Serb misdeeds in the 80's/90's are both central to the story of "Anti-Serb sentiment", and to remove them or reduce discussion of them to a couple of sentences (as Antidiskriminator proposes) would mean that the article would not tell the whole story (and would lack context). The idea that discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's could imply that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed is inherently contradictory. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Joy

Please see Talk:Anti-Serb sentiment#Criticism?? etc. The entirety of the article has a variety of problems; pruning the criticism altogether, which is what was suggested originally, would easily be seen as whitewashing, and adding just another problem to the pile. Antidiskriminator seems to have a tendency of making various edits consistent with Serbian nationalist talking points, recently he 'earned' an WP:ARBMAC topic ban over one Serbian World War II issue (a Chetnik commander) and led to a move ban over another (the article about the Nazi occupation of Serbia), and this appears to be no exception - let's shun the criticism from the get-go just because it doesn't fit our preferred narrative. Assorted Croatian and other nationalists who tried to delete the entire article on their own deluded premises notwithstanding -- the criticism of the use of this term in the more recent history is entirely legitimate, and is already sourced to several English-language publications that appear to be reliable sources. The term has been tainted in the 1980s with the SANU Memorandum's perfidious invocation of "Serbophobia", and in turn Slobodan Milošević's fake outrage about it - they used it as a blatant technique to make the Serbs look like the perpetual victims, while at the same time they orchestrated all sorts of nastiness in the breakup of Yugoslavia. The encyclopedic entry on the phenomenon and the phrase would be incomplete without the clear description of this issue. Also, as I said earlier, having the criticism section does not in any way invalidate the description of the legitimate applications of the phrase, such as those related to WWII. --Joy (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by bobrayner

I agree with Joy's stance that the article has broader problems; it's a collection of Serb-nationalist talking points; any fragment that fits the Serb-victimhood trope is put on the page without context. The issue over the criticism section raised by Antidiskriminator seems to be highly selective; there are wider issues that need to be fixed. Same problem we had at Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Serb sentiment discussion

Hi;

I've asked another regular to help me mediate in this matter, and until he agrees, this will be quite slow to kick off.

--The Historian (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've got a second mediator who's willing to assist on this matter, and he's going to take the lead. To start off, I'd like parties to provide summaries of no more than one paragraph of their cases. Antidiskriminator, I want you to have a look at your link that is entitled "45 of them", since it just shows a template - I'm not 100% sure as to what it's meant to show, and I'd like it if you'd correct that please. The Historian (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Corrected.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fromm looking at the Misplaced Pages:Consistency, the rule described therein only applies to factual consistency. Stylistic consistency, which is what I think you're arguing over, is dealt with in the manual of style. From what I've read on the manual of style, it appears that Misplaced Pages does favour consistency across all articles. This is my opinion, and I'd like the leading mediator to take a look to see whether I'm on the right track, so don't take my reasoning here as gospel until the lead mediator has given it the OK. --The Historian (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Stylistic consistency is dealt with in the manual of style. WP:CONSISTENCY only say that "the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" which confirm your oppinion that "Misplaced Pages does favour consistency across all articles"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on this fact, could parties make submissions of not more than one paragraph, written in this "discussion" session, on what effect the fact that WP:Consistensy does not apply might have on this dispute, and how we should proceed. I ask this merely because one of the parties (I've lost track of whom) alleges that WP:CONSISTENSY does apply. Since we have worked out that it doesn't, the original claimant's submission that it does has fallen away. --The Historian (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've essentially addressed this above, but once WP:CONSISTENCY is put to one side, the remaining issue is that User:Antidiskriminator thinks "that it is wrong to have criticism section in the article about hatred towards an ethnic group, in this case Serbs, because it implies that such a sentiment may not even exist and justifies this sentiment". Antidiskriminator's apparent belief that detailed discussion of the use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" as propaganda in the 80's/90's implies that "Anti-Serb sentiment" has never existed, or somehow denies or justifies hatred of Serbs, is inherently contradictory. My view is that either the section should stand as is, or the existing content of the section in question should instead be placed in chronologically appropriate places in the lead and body. The use of "Anti-Serb sentiment" in the 1980s/90s by Milošević and his fellow travellers is an integral part of the chronological narrative of "Anti-Serb sentiment". Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Although WP:CONSISTENCY does not directly apply here (because it deals only with factual consistency) it is helpful for this dispute because it confirms that "stylistic — the organization and presentation of the information should be uniform across articles" and explains that Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style exists to deal with stylistic consistency. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Consistency is a red herring. Whether or not the article should have exactly the same headings as other articles about anti-whatever-sentiment, that sidesteps the article's bigger issues. Focussing on the name of a heading rather on serious content problems is worrying. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about not coming back earlier - real life and a long and messy arbitration case in which I'm an involved party got in the way. I've reviewed the article in its entirety. There is very little in each section describing the history of anti-serb discrimination look a bit "empty". I would suggest that parts of the "criticism and controversy" section should be integrated into the main historical section of the article. The "Serbophobia" section...I'm not 100% sure where that goes. The "breakup of Yugoslavia" section is quite lacking in substance, so think about putting "serbophobia" in there. Otherwise, there's very little else I can do.

--The Historian (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two other editors that could help resolving this dispute. One actually added this disputed section to the article (PRODUCER) and another (User:Timbouctou) substantially edited it. I notified both of them about this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion massacre

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kfar Etzion massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Pluto2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nishidani deleted my editing. the Diff page. The problems are:

• Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
• The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. We could not find a compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully, a volunteer will convince us to find a compromise.

Summary of dispute by nishidani

This is being discussed on the page. Generally ykantor's edit (a) rewrote this, which is, as anyone can see a source-adequate statement of the totally misleading lead that preceded it. Ykantor complains I cancelled his revision of my edit. Were I to complain, I would note he cancelled my edit, and did so rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence to replace it. (b) he added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description of the event with the insinuation that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews. That didn't provide historic context, it implied this event was a behavioural problem in Arabs. This is all I will say here. One does not go to this page to complain about a dispute when the talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions mentioned.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Kfar Etzion massacre discussion

• Nishidani's version is much better than Ykantor's one. It provides the historical background, which is important in the context of controversial and dramatic events such the massacres of the 1948 war. Nishidani's version is also more detailled. Anyway, major problem is the behaviour of Ykantor who systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events as well as the fact he systematically discusses each detail and complains when discussions don't go in the direction that he wants. He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests and also by the way he intervenes on the different talk pages of wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

After a few days, I fell that I have to say that those reactions are mostly not true:

• rewriting a contentless garbled and tediously repetitive sentence
• added a totally irrelevant and lengthy note clearly intended to contaminate a neutral description
• ...that 'Arabs' were accustomed to massacring Jews
• talk page is productively engaged in resolving the questions
• ... systematically adds "quotes" that tend to influence the neutral description of the events
• ...He is in infraction with WP:POINT with his numerous requests

All these sentences are not true. The Talkpage discussion is fairly elaborate, and one can read it and decide for himself. I am sure what will be the consequences. Ykantor (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Good evening! I'm sorry it took so long for a volunteer to take on this case, but we've all been busy with other cases. Whilst, in theory, I think I could give summary judgment and close this case, I want to ask some questions first - namely: Why is the date of this massacre relative to the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence considered important enough to warrant inclusion in the article? (to be answered by the party who wishes to include such information). --The Historian (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Historian, Thank you for your intervention. If no answer is given to your question today I will make a comment on this particular point. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(1) This was the state of the lead before either I or Ykantor began to look at the page. Nobody for months, perhaps a year, worried about the received connection between the date of the massacre and the day of the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

(2) I intervened, since the whole lead sentence falsified a complex reality in which, certainly a massacre occurred, but it did not consist of the whole population, which was not just ‘Jews’ or ‘inhabitants’ but an entrenched military force with an active role in waging war in the Arab sector. I respected the consensual indication in that sentence linking the episode to the Declaration of Independence, because the whole battle and tragedy occurred in order to secure time for that Declaration's military consequences.

(3) Ykantor reverted both my rewriting which is attentive to the problems, and which included the consensual text point you worry about, a reference to the Israeli Declaration of Independence that had been stable for months, with the deceptive edit summary ‘add important points to the first sentence’.

It’s deceptive because he didn’t add: he wiped out both my edit and the stabilized points in the phrasing prior to my intervention. Why, I repeat, he thinks he can wipe out an item no one has challenged, and with it, wipe out my polishing of that page’s lead sentence, and say he is ‘adding’ when he just deleted information, and then charge that there is a ‘dispute’ requiring mediation, is beyond me. By the same logic, I could have hauled him here to dispute his erasure of both my edit and the embedded consensual linking of the episode to the Israeli Independence Declaration. This is a complete waste of time. The issue is under the scrutiny of several editors, and only Ykantor complains. If he is dissatisfied, he must convince several editors that his erasure improves the text. It doesn’t, and I haven't time to broker a compromise on ever edit I might make through exhaustive recourse to pages like this. We are a community of editors, and Ykantor's habit of picking out one and trying to open yet one more huge thread contesting the p's and q's of an edit challenging one of his, is ridiculous, and contrary to wikipedia's procedures, where these things are a last resort. The problem has been resolved.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I concurr with what Nishidani writes. Particularly regarding Ykantor's behaviour.
Regarding the content, the fact that the massacre took place two days before the end of the Mandate is important because the Yishuv (Jewish) population and leadership really feared what was going to happen and particularly what the "powerful" (was it ?) Arab Legion would do. They were prepared but a war is always uncertain. (eg Lebanon announced not participating a few hours before 15 May). In this context, the involvment of the Arab Legion in a massacre (controvesed but not at the time) had a deep impact : voluntary or not, a message was sent and Jewish Leadership reacted accordingly.
This remains a complex question and the current lead may not be the best to take into account that point but the "dispute" between Nishidani (more others) and Ykantor is not about this. As Nishidani points out, Ykantor without the support of any other contributor performs modifications on complex and controversial articles that are followed by tenths of others and, after complains everywhere against those who reject his actions. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As I already proposed to Nishidani:"Your English is better than mine, and you can re-write the sentence as you wish", he could have polish, balance, make it attentive, de-garble and stabilize the sentence by himself. So we can concentrate in the dispute itself- The problems are:

• Is the term "After their surrender" correct?
• The first sentence should include important facts ( who attacked, where was it) and possibly exclude less important information (the date relatively to the independence declaration). Ykantor (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• You rewrote my sentence; I expanded the earlier sentence. You are complaining I should rewrite your sentence which eviscerates the earlier text, and my modification, and introduces a POV. Really, man. Think this over with precision. Peer editorial review seems to favour my version. Punto e basta. If it has some wobble in it, Pluto, Zero and yourself can thrash it out and trim it further. We are a collegial society. This is not a me against him/her one-off battle edit per edit.
• (b) My edit reads:'a massacre that took place after a two (two=day) battle between Jewish settlers and soldiers and a combined force of the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, at Kibbutz Kfar Etzion.'
• (i) sources are totally confused. (ii)POV sources number all those killed in the 2-day battle as victims of the massacre which apparently (in my view almost certainly) took place after a signal (deceptive or sincere is not the point) was given that Jewish fighters were surrendering. A 'massacre' strictly speaking occurs when unarmed people or people not capable of adequately defending themselves, are murdered in considerable numbers. It took place after the main battle. We simply don't know exactly what happened, we do not know for sure if the flag was a feint or a real surrender (I personally tend to think the latter). The only way to handle this per WP:NPOV is to write 'after the battle'.
• (b)Other editors disagree with your unique preference.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is some advance, as you accept adding {killed} "at Kfar Etzion" to the first sentence. Would you advance further and add who killed?, and who was killed? in the first sentence? Ykantor (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. This sounds like a pilpul exercise (which would be fine by me if we were arguing on the Torah and Talmud). 'at Kfar Etzion' already exists. Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text. You want me to make the first sentence somewhat ugly by adding 'Jews' just before 'Jewish settlers and soldiers'? I'd have no problem with that other than stylistic and commonsensical. It's called 'overegging the pud'. Sources blame the Arab legion (b) local villagers.It's dumb. Edits are made on the page, and discussed there, between several editors. You do not use this page to negotiate a binding agreement between, say, just one editor (me) and yourself that is ostensibly binding to that page.

To repeat, the fundamental editing principle here, which Pluto, Zero and myself all underwrite in blood, is that drafting anything where several good sources are in conflict, requires all serious editors (and I think you are developing promise in that regard, and I say that without any air of being patronizing. We have a lot of bad editors who just push crap or POVs in here, and you are a class apart) to phrase everything with an acute ear to the dissonances. One must not (a) entertain a private theory (b) privilege one source over another. That is why close attention to phrasing, modulation is crucial for these articles. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

yours:"Of course it was Jews who were killed in the massacre. That's obvious in the text.". so why should not it written in the first sentence? Once an ignorant reader read the article, he should know the important facts before the less important one. Ykantor (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For Yahweh/Christ/Allah/Satan/Juppiter's sake, if that's what bothered you, why didn't you just add the word. Go for it, but please, please do not make extraordinary extenuating exasperating use of boards and talks when a simple edit or point is at stake.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we agree that my initial opening sentence is correct? ( except of "after their surrender"). For our convenience, the sentence is:"The Kfar Etzion massacre refers to the massacre of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion members and soldiers, on May 13, 1948, after their surrender to the Arab Legion and Arab villagers, who attacked their village, Kfar Etzion". As discussed, the sentence style and syntax can be improved. Ykantor (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I added myself to the dispute. We are all tired of the "pilpul" situation.

If Ykantor is good faith (I know "WP:AGF"), he will be able to and will answer precisely to the following question in compliance with the 4th pilar of wikipedia.

• What is the main difference between your version and the current one ?
• Why do you refuse by yourself to introduce all pov's of view on any topic and do you consider there are sides (even among contributors) and that each side (represented by contributors) would have to give his point of view and another side would have to take care of others in order to comply with WP:NPOV ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

2Cellos nationality

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2Cellos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Eleassar (talk · contribs)
• Odiriuss (talk · contribs)
• Helpbottt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This content dispute concerns the nationality of the music group 2Cellos. Whereas they are described as 'Croatian' at their homepage () and facebook page (), secondary sources describe them as a Croatian-Slovenian duo. The correct description has been extensively discussed at Talk:2Cellos, with the general consensus that the last description is more appropriate. As far as I understand, per WP:SECONDARY, interpretive claims like this one should be based and referenced to secondary sources. An independent review and opinion would be much appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion on the talk page, request for a third opinion.

How do you think we can help?

The provision of an independent view would be much appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Odiriuss

User Eleassar clearly doesn't understand what the function of primary and secondary sources is,therefore he doesn't understand that there is no content dispute since on their official pages it clearly states that they are Croatian. Secondary sources cannot be used to determine someones national identity,since it is only that persons choice and as already stated,it clearly says on their official page that it is Croatian. Furthermore,there was no general consensus on Eleassars description,that is an outright lie which can be easily checked by going over the talk page,the only one who insists on this description is Eleassar. With all that said,it is clear that there is no content dispute,only Eleassar claims there is due to his poor understanding of primary and secondary sources and his agenda,i have reported him for vandalising the page because that is precisely what he is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 09:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to say that there are at least ten times more secondary sources that clearly state they are Croatian, here are just a few : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/ny-2cellos-fall-tour-idUSnPNNY46392+1e0+PRN20130712,http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/2cellos-to-release-in2ition-on-january-15/10362706, http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/2CELLOS-to-Launch-First-North-American-Tour-in-April-20130319, http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/music/Canadas+Ezrin+takes+unique+Croatian+2Cellos+under/8444073/story.html, http://www.robe.cz/news/article/2cellos-for-robe/, http://www.contactmusic.com/news/2cellos-classical-music-can-be-boring_3445942. Odiriuss (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Helpbottt

I have to agree with Odiriuss. This duo, is described as Croatian on every relevant site, except Slovenian ones. --Helpbottt (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

2Cellos nationality discussion

Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Am I correct in saying the majority of the discussion is over a year old bar a few comments from 5 months ago or has discussion taken place recently in another location? If the former then why is this DRN being filed now? To me it seems the third opinion given by Number 57 was reasonable. Finally, when referring to the origin of the band itself, it was formed and developed in Croatia primarily so I'd refer to the band as Croatian, judging by the sources this is the view held by many. Putting Slovenian in the nationality also feels awkward and like its being forced in there. Personally I'd like to see more recent discussion on the talk page before taking this as a DRN but I'll let another volunteer weigh in on that before closing it. Cabe6403 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion that first took place was because on their official site and facebook page it did not clearly state the nationality of the duo,since then it has been changed to Croatian duo on both their official pages. Eleassar changed the article again yesterday citing some obscure secondary source from 2012 to prove his "case" without posting on the talk page,today i and Helpbottt changed it back and I reported him for vandalism since 99 % of all other secondary sources refer to them as Croatian,except the Slovenian ones. Odiriuss (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We've tried to resolve the issue at the talk page, but to no avail, which meant that involvement of a wider community is needed. In regard to Odiriruss's opinion I somehow don't see how he has found out that there are 10 times as many sources stating the band is Croatian not Croatian-Slovenian. A description of the nationality of the band is also a matter not only of their personal choice (no explicit statement about this has been presented), but also of the perception by the environment where they're active. In any case, this is something that sources evidently disagree upon. Per WP:NPOV, we should report all significant opinions and not present any one of them as a fact. If the issue is contentious, we should report in the lead that opinions differ if at all. I therefore support the proposal by Number 57 to leave out the nationality from the lead as their backgrounds are well-described in the first section. This was already implemented by an anonymous user in January 2012,, but reverted by User:Scrosby85 a month later, which is a shame. --Eleassar 11:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Again,the issue on the talk page was because there was no information about their nationality on their OFFICIAL pages,i cannot stress that enough,now that it has been updated this shouldn't be an issue,only Eleassar is making it one. A simple google search clearly shows the state of secondary sources on this matter,there are virtually none that describe them as Eleassar would like them to be,thus there is no issue whatsoever besides in Eleassars imagination. Odiriuss (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I will quote Odiriuss and then show below that he is wrong.

"What's funny is that you obviously have no idea what you are talking about... There at least ten times more secondary sources that confirm they are Croatian, here are just a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Funny, ha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odiriuss (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "

The queries below will prove Odiriuss wrong and Eleassar right. The first query gives correct (advanced) Google search results for "Croatian duo", i.e. without the instances where "Croatian duo" is only a part of the full "Slovenian-Croatian duo" text, and combined with the search for the word "2cellos".
The second query will give you correct results for "Slovenian-Croatian duo" query, combined with the search for "2cellos". The number of hits are 323 and 1100, respectively.
Try for yourself.
Query #1: www.google.com/search?q="Croatian+duo"+2cellos+-"Slovenian-Croatian+duo"
Query #2: https://www.google.com/search?q="Croatian-Slovenian+duo"+2cellos. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Google 2Cellos, or 2Cellos article,not duos and then tell me how many pages it takes to find Croatian-Slovenian?Odiriuss (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just checked your links, there are barely 3 pages for Croatian-Slovenian, and 14 pages for Croatian even with you query DancingPhilosopher. That is pretty conclusive, thank you. Odiriuss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you search "Croatian duo" 2cellos (https://www.google.hr/?gws_rd=cr&ei=83IoUqCYIs-Kswav0IDYCw#q=%22Croatian+duo%22+2cellos&start=250) you get 25 pages,if you search "Croatian-Slovenian duo" 2cellos (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Croatian-Slovenian+duo%22+2cellos#q=%22Croatian-Slovenian+duo%22+2cellos&start=20) you get 2 full pages and 2 more entries,that is pretty conclusive. Odiriuss (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In numbers, 246 that say Croatian compared to 22 that say Croatian-Slovenian, so i apologise, i was wrong, it's actually more then ten times. Odiriuss (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm one of the volunteers here at DRN. Two things tip the scales here quite clearly: the group self identifies as Croatian, and a majority of reliable sources do as well. It's not our place, nor the place of media outlets or otherwise to dictate the national identification of a person or group. Given the ratio, it'd be undue weight in my opinion to write Croatian-Slovenian. That'd be like saying "Princess Diana was murdered" - just because a handful take that view does not mean we should change it from the largely held one. Steven Zhang 12:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and also the google test doesn't carry any weight in these types of discussion other than as a quick rule of thumb Cabe6403 13:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys, when you look at it objectively, it's all pretty clear. Since both of you agree, i would like to ask you to close this discussion. Odiriuss (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon X and Y

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pokémon X and Y (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ryulong (talk · contribs)
• Wonchop (talk · contribs)
• Blake (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

As new information was released for this video game, I had been adding the English and Japanese language terms for new video game mechanics. In the last 24 hours, Wonchop removed all of the Japanese text multiple times. I approached him on his talk page requesting he not remove it at User talk:Wonchop#Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle, but he moved the discussion to the article talk page at Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unneccessary Japanese and snarkily said he was tired of me talking to him (he was also snarky here). Blake commented on the talk page, and after WP:3O volunteers turned it down, he took it as meaning "2 vs 1 means we win" and added a message saying it was forbidden. WP:MOS-JA#Using Japanese in the article body supports my argument, but because I revealed I had been involved in the formation of WP:VG/JP (which I mistakenly thought had something relevant) he will not acknowledge the manual of style's statement, believing I had been involved in its formation as well and therefore cannot be used.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion was sought by Wonchop, but because Blake had participated this negated the use. I also removed some, but not all, of the accompanying Japanese text but Wonchop does not want any of it, saying I am introducing a Japanese bias to the article, when it is an article about a Japanese subject.

How do you think we can help?

A third opinion was sought, and I have found that I cannot adequately communicate with Wonchop due to stubbornness on his side whenever I try to communicate with him. I have brought a communication problem with him here in the past and it somewhat helped.

Summary of dispute by Wonchop

Ryulong has been overly defiant in this insistance of including Japanese where it is not neccessary, given that the game has already been supplied with official terminology, under the rather boastful assumption that 'it's a Japanese game, therefore it MUST have Japanese text everywhere'. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Non-English games states "For systems and games, English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." and despite his insistance that it is 'informational', it is mainly proven to be just noise as many of the things he demands remain translated are terms that are either just katakana or literal translations (eg. the translation of 'Mega Evolution' as 'Mega Shinka'). At the most, the article only needs Japanese translations for the game's title, the game's setting (unless it is mentioned in another linked article) and at a stretch, the Pokémon Bank and Pokémon Transporter apps, as they can be considered as seperate software. He has also been very defiant in some of the beneficial edits I have made, such as simplifying the Gameplay description to not focus heavily on specific Pokémon (since it'll become irrelevant when the game is released) and repetition. Ryulong's behaviour has been, to put it as nicely as I can, hypocritical, often accusing me of disrupting the article when he is clearly no better himself, if not worse.Wonchop (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Blake

While I agree with Wonchop's opinion of the content in the article, I disagree with the way that both parties are going about this. Ryulong mentions how stubborn Wonchop is being, but he is being equally as stubborn. An edit war takes two to participate, and as such, they are both responsible. He also mentions writing the guideline that he is enforcing, which makes his stance very sketchy, and while I don't mean to make any enemies, I just can't agree with the way that he is participating in this debate. Wonchop also brought some WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments which makes his points just as invalid as Ryulong's. I would have liked a third party editor to step in, but it would be best if they were knowledgeable about both video game articles and the Japanese manual of style, similar to Ryulong, but with less of an aggressive attitude. _Blake 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Pokémon X and Y#Unnecessary Japanese discussion

Blake, I did not write the guideline I am enforcing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the WP:VG guidelines, which you admitted that you did help write, due to the project's incorrect guidelines in that area. I don't think I have bothered to check the JPMOS ones, so I can't say for certain whether they support your argument. For the record, my opinion is just that if the subject is only being discussed in passing, then the Japanese name is not necessary, while if it is something even as significant as a whole paragraph, then it could be permitted. _Blake 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, may I note that Wonchop went ahead and wrote guidelines himself, so if you use those, use it with a grain of salt, knowing that he wrote them after this argument took place. _Blake 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I assure you those weren't added to spite Ryulong, but simply because there was no mention of Japanese text outside of game titles. I'm as big an anime fan as anybody, but I respect that an English Misplaced Pages needs to have a general focus on English, with Japanese only been used to explain things that English alone could not. Just because a game is developed in Japan doesn't mean that it should be filled with Japanese trivia when there are perfectly good English terms available. According to the article's history, the additions have been generally approved of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonchop (talk • contribs)

Now that definitely does not have any sort of consensus and is equally as disruptive. I've reverted. Things like that should be brought up for discussion on the talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, just so I don't have to come back here for a while(need to focus on some college work for a bit), I think the winning solution would be to list these gameplay features under Gameplay of Pokémon, like is usually done, and the Japanese names can then be shown there, where they are being primarily discussed. This would free up the clutter in the article, while also being supported by the WP:MOS-JA guideline. _Blake 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that this conflict involves illogical adherence to MOSJA, a community guideline, versus the wikiproject guideline of WP:VG/GL. The question of Japanese usage should be case by case where the careful wording of VG/GL should be taken over the more vague MOSJA. No wikiproject owns a page and since the two sides conflict, typically MOSJA would be preferred, but on its vagueness and the narrow case I'd defer to VG/GL specific reading of, " English terms are preferred over non-English equivalents when the difference would either be confusing to the reader or unimportant within the context of the article." The question that must be asked by both parties: "Why is it an improvement to use the English name and immediately follow it with a different Japanese name without addressing the name in context or referencing it again?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Ryulong thinks that just because "it can" means "it should", while Wonchop is trying to make it against guidelines to do it. Overall, it is a loose guideline, and generally allows for the fact that if it helps the article, it can be included under certain restrictions(once per term, and not if it links to an article with more information). The thing is, these names do not help the reader understand it at all unless they are able to read Japanese, which is a very very very small percentage of readers. As they don't help the average reader any, they should be used sparingly, which is what I have said. They should be used when the subject is the primary point of discussion, but not for every single term in the article. Further more, many of these terms can be thrown over to the full gameplay article, where it would be permissible to include the Japanese name. _Blake 22:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd side with not mentioning terms that do not have an explicit and pressing need for Japanese reference when the term already has a concrete and definitive official English definition. A second question could be asked: "What is the purpose of mentioning the Japanese name when it will not be analyzed or repeated throughout the article?"ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It provides more real world context by showing that the Japanese version existed rather than WP:VG's apparent preference to believe that once a localization occurs no one needs to know anything about the Japanese release anymore. That was evident years ago when I helped introduce WP:VG/JP. And I remember that when Pokemon Black and White were finally announced in English, people began changing the Japanese names to the English ones in the sections about the build up to the Japanese release. Japanese text isn't intrusive. It gives the readers more information. It can't be confusing. No one's going to analyze any of these things in a serious manner other than the mechanics once it gets released so your argument holds for even providing any proper nouns.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion - Like Chris, I'd side with not including the japanese where there's no explicit need for them, especially when there's an official English term. At WP:MOS-JA#Japanese terms it says Give the romanization for any Japanese name or term written in kanji or kana by following the pattern. Things like "Mega Evolution" aren't romanizations of Japanese names. They are the English name for that aspect. Sentences like this: star-shaped Kalos Region (カロス地方 Karosu-chihō?), with Lumiose City (Miare City (ミアレシティ Miare Shiti?) in Japan) as its central city. are now more confusing with nested parenthesis. (Please note: I am not stating this in a capacity of a DRN volunteer, rather I am a WP:VG contributor and am commenting from an editor point of view) Cabe6403 08:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an incredibly wrong misinterpretation of the Japanese manual of style. If you actually read the whole thing it is describing how the English form, Japanese form, and romanization of the Japanese form are supposed to be formatted when listed together. "Mega Evolution" is "メガシンカ" in Japanese and that is romanized as "Mega Shinka" so you format it as {{nihongo|Mega Evolution|メガシンカ|Mega Shinka}}. This part of the style guide does not govern when or when not to include Japanese text.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The point still stands that there is no need to give a Japanese translation of an official English term, particularly when it's an identical word or a literal translation. The only terms that should really be given translations are the terms that benefit from having one, such as games where Japanese terminology is brought over into the English version such as Metal Gear Rising's Zandetsu technique or Viewtiful Joe's catchphrase of "Henshin-a-go-go, baby!". And as mentioned, the Pokémon Bank and Poké Transporter apps could be given their Japanese titles since they can be treated as seperate software. But other than that, it's your typical case of "too many cooks spoil the broth". Throwing in too much Japanese where it isn't neccessary purely for the sake of 'it's a Japanese-made game' just ruins the article's flow.Wonchop (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because a localization exists and terms have been translated does not mean the original form should not be acknowledged unless a foreign language word is used in the localization. The Japanese text does not ruin the flow. Hundreds of other articles include Japanese text in the prose and they do exhibit the problems you think they do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, just because a Japanese translation for something exists, doesn't mean it needs to be used. You have done nothing to show these things need to be included outside of the argument that "it's a Japanese game, therefore it needs lots of Japanese".Wonchop (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What other argument is there? If an article is about something French I expect it to include French words. If an article is about something Russian I expect it to include Cyrillic. WP:MOS-JA says it can be added and I added it to the article in the months and months I've been editting it. No one ever had a problem or said "why do we have these". You suddenly decided that you felt they were "unneccessary" and removed all of them without discussion, and even while discussion was still underway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit not the editor, the discussion is about the appropriateness of the Japanese names. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that the content was not an issue up until Wonchop made it an issue is not relevant here. No one paid it any mind until Wonchop felt that they were "unneccessary".—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you're acting here as volunteer Chris, I would like to request a different volunteer, preferrably one who is not currently in another dispute with me that has been going on for most of this year.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that's not how debates work. You can't just demand people be left out of the argument just because they don't agree with your opinion. Wonchop (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and I have been in a dispute since March. I would rather have someone else mediate this. That is not too much to ask.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not like he's compelled to take my side either. Wonchop (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just like someone who is uninvolved with all parties.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not say I was mediating this. If you cannot argue why your edit is an improvement than do not make the edit. Forgetting anything to do with policy for a moment, if you cannot justify the action, why defend it? Wonchop has as much right as any other editor to challenge something that they find questionable or detrimental to the article and the justification for the edit is backed with a reason. Ryulong, you are on the other side, but you do not seem to have given a reason why the names aid in comprehension of the subject or are an improvement at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I am fully allowed to do so per WP:MOS-JA which sets out rules for all articles on Japanese subjects. This requirement that they must aid in comprehension of the subject is not written anywhere in any policy or guideline. Do we exclude the Spanish language terms at Bullfighting (or Spanish-style bullfighting)? No. So no one should be forbidden for doing the same for Japanese language video game jargon simply because an English translation is available.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor articles to compare to, but I'm not going to used the flawed statement of "otherstuff" as people have argued (it does not apply btw), but MOS-JA is not absolute. There is no pressing need to even mention the Japanese name, so why do so "per MOS-JA"? If you cannot justify it than it should be removed. If you want to keep repeating the same thing be my guest, but I am going to agree with Wonchop's logical argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

His logical argument is "do not ever use Japanese text unless a word is Japanese in the English release". I do not think we need to be limited that much. It's verifiable. It's sourced. It's not indiscriminately chosen. There is nothing but subjective personal preference being pushed by Wonchop.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't twist people's statements (Japanese words used in English releases were just one of the examples I gave, not the solitary one, if you had even bothered to read what I had proposed for WP:VG/GL), nor should you imply people are pushing their personal preferences when you are clearly doing so yourself.Wonchop (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm editing in a method allowed (although not mandadory) by other manuals of style. It's more important to show the real world connections rather than just constantly acting as if it had never existed in any other language prior (as is often the case for Pokémon pages).—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

But apparently people aren't allowed to exclude them in favor of making the article more readable for a general audience (considering the fact you've also been reverting my attempts to simplify the Gameplay segment outside of the use/exclusion of Japanese terms by limiting mentions of specific Pokémon). You're the only one who sees this as some terrifying oppression against culture. Wonchop (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You simplified it too much to where things that previously had no description anywhere else on the project were cut down to halves of sentences when neither item had anything to do with the other outside of being in the same video game. Also I'm tired of having this fucking conversation in three different places.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Then just drop it. From what I can tell, we've more or less exhausted every possible reasoning in trying to prove our cases. Let the DRN guys sort out this dispute from here and let other users in WP:VG/GL discuss what to do with my proposed suggestions. Wonchop (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be stopped on other pages when it was brought here. I'm part of the dispute so I should be involved in its resolution, as per the whole purpose of this board.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson (colonist)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Anthony Johnson (colonist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WLRoss (talk · contribs)
• Scoobydunk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A new editor, Scoobydunk, disputes the view that John Casor was the first legal slave in the British colonies and that his owner Anthony Johnson was thus the first slave owner. He supports that Indentured servitude for life is slavery which makes John Punch the first slave and Hugh Gwyn the first slave owner. Scoobydunk has deleted text pointing out that Indentured servitude for life was not uncommon in the colonies and other related text that does not support his view. I added seven sources, books written by authors with history degrees, to the specific claim. Scoobydunk deleted the claim while leaving the references.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed the problem on the Talk page. and added at least 15 academic sources to the article supporting the original text. An uninvolved editor also explained the difference between servitude and slavery to Scoobydunk which was rejected.

How do you think we can help?

Add input from uninvolved editors in a noticeboard environment.

Summary of dispute by Scoobydunk

Historians confirm that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave. I gave WLRoss a number of sources that prove Punch was sentenced to life in servitude thus making him the first legally recognized slave in 1641. WLRoss violated WP:OR policy and tried to claim Punch wasn't a slave but an indentured servant and provided no source that made this distinction, it was purely his own opinion. The Punch case predates the Johnson v. Parker trial of 1654 which legally recognized Casor as a slave. I've given a number of sources in the talk page to substantiate this claim. WLRoss basically said that all of my sources were "wrong" because he disagrees with what qualifies an indentured servant vs. a slave, which is not his decision to make. Regardless of what his opinion is, historians regard Punch as the first legal slave in the English colonies because his case predates Casor's by 13 years. Thus, Hugh Gwyn was the first slave owner, not Anthony Johnson.

WLRoss wants the article to read that Anthony Johnson was "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." This is wrong for a number of reasons. Spain had slaves dating back to 1560 in their colony. Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641 and even the official state website says this. Connecticut legalized slavery in 1650. John Punch was sentenced to life long slavery for trying to runaway in 1641,Virginia. So to make a claim that Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner is wrong for a variety of reasons and ignores many legal documents and court cases. I edited the claim to say "he was the first legally recognized slave owner in the English colonies to hold a servant for life where crime was not involved." This wording accommodates all of the information that was presented in the talk page. If you remove any of the qualifiers, then it becomes a false statement. WLRoss violates WP:POV by ignoring what has been factually recognized by numerous reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Johnson (colonist) discussion

Wayne's six sources do not meet reliable source requirements. Two of the works are books intended for juveniles (11 and up) and two are written by generalists who are not specialists in either slavery, African Americans, or American colonial history. One is a WPA work written during the Depression by unnamed authors, and the final one does not support Wayne's overly broad claims -- in fact it supports Scoobydunk. In the interest of brevity, I have listed the specifics, with appropriate links, at Talk:Anthony Johnson (colonist)#Dispute Resolution.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How do they not meet reliable source requirements? Five are written by authors with degrees in history and the two books intended for juveniles were written as high school textbooks. Two being generalists actually supports this being the mainstream view as generalists are far less likely to subscribe to alternate theories.
The source you say supports Scoobydunk does not, while it does say that indentured servants were technically slaves, it specifically says that laws defining slavery began in the 1660s and that Casor was the first legal slave which is exactly what the WP article says.
Scoobydunk states that Massachusetts legalized slavery in 1641. The term Massachusetts uses is bond slavery and the act applied only to "lawful Captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us." Also, the children of bond slaves were born free. Bond slavery is slavery of labour not of the person. In the 1780s, the Supreme Court stated it "could find no authority for believing that slavery ever had any legal existence in that State." The 1864 Constitutional Convention looked into the historical legality of slavery and in regards to Massachusetts argued that slavery had not legally existed in Massachusetts until laws protecting slavery were passed in 1698. Scoobydunk also states that slavery existed in the Spanish mainland colonies. This is irrelevant as the Johnson article says British colonies while the infobox specifically says the Thirteen Colonies. Even if Scoobydunk were right about Casor then Punch is still not the first slave as there had been many cases before where indentured servants were sentenced to a life of servitude for escaping, the earliest I have heard of was in 1630.

• The crux of this dispute is: was slavery as we know it legal before Casor? Everyone knows that slaves did exist, but they were not legally sanctioned, please provide sources written by historians for the view that it was. Wayne (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've responded in depth at the discussion page of the article -- this page really isn't intended to rehash the entire debate before a volunteer makes an appearance.

In any event, if the two juvenile books are in fact textbooks then this makes them tertiary sources (see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources) and inappropriate for use here. As far as the two generalists, one work is "Discovering A Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America" (hardly an appropriate or logical source when so many other works are available) and the other is "Popular Controversies in World History", a work that is a compendium, free of footnotes or bibliography, that includes chapters covering the entirety of human history -- once again a tertiary source. These sources may be available online, but you still need to do much, much, better if you are going to argue your case based on sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Obama was the first black President of The United States of America." However, this is not the same thing as "Obama is the first President of The United States of America." If you remove the word "black" then the entire statement ceases to be factually accurate. For some reason, WLRoss thinks it's okay to remove descriptive qualifiers for which the veracity of the statement hinges upon. If the statement is not properly qualified, then it becomes false.

Now, if you look at what I quoted from your last revision of the Anthony Johnson article, it said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." Spain had mainland colonies, therefore my mentioning that Spain held slaves since 1560 IS RELEVANT because Spain owned mainland colonies. Therefore, the wording in your revision was factually incorrect when talking about "mainland colonies".

The WPA article also qualifies their assertion that John Casor was the first slave by saying "where crime was not involved." They specifically qualified this statement with "where crime was not involved" because it acknowledges that slaves were held prior to Casor, like John Punch who had been legally sentenced and therefore legally sanctioned. If you take out "where crime was not involved" then the statement is no longer historically or factually accurate. That's why this source actually supports my argument and this was the compromise I used to preserve your desire to say that Casor was the "first" of anything.

Your other source, Toppin, actually speaks of both Punch and Casor and correctly uses qualifiers for both. Toppin says on page 45 "Punch, in effect, became a slave under this ruling." So clearly the author of your source agrees with me and the facts of history that John Punch became a slave in 1641 as the result of a judicial ruling. Toppin goes on to say this about John Casor "John Casor, in 1655, is the first black we know of to be made a slave in a CIVIL CASE in Virginia." See, Toppin qualifies this statement by saying "civil case in Virginia." However, if you remove either "civli case" or "Virginia" or both, the statement is no longer factually accurate.

Herbert S. Klein in his "Slavery in the Americas A Comparative Study of Virginia and Cuba" also supports the position that slavery was recognized as an institution in Virginia starting with the John Punch case. He says "Although the legislative or statutory structure of Negro slavery was not begun until 1662, there already appeared as early as 1640 county court cases recognizing the institution as it was being created in practice by the planters. In that year John Punch, a Negro, was made to serve for life as a punishment for running away, whereas the two whites with him had but four additional years added to their time." Klein also goes on to talk about Casor and the Johnson v. Parker suit, but only references it to illustrate how hard it was for black indentured servants to escape from being labeled as life long slaves. He never says anything about Casor being the first slave or that this case established slavery. So here's another Historian that actually recognizes both Punch and Casor in his work and explains how slavery as an institution began with the Punch case and gives Johnson/Casor no historical significance in establishing or recognizing the institution.

Though your use of "mainstream" and "minority" are logical fallacies and have no bearing on the validity of the information presented, here's an encyclopedia entry that says "Yet court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640, the year that slavery was officially instituted in Jamestown." http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3406400017.html . And here's what the NPS own government website says about the history of Jamestown. "1640 John Punch, a runaway indentured Servant, first documented slave for life." http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/african-americans-at-jamestown.htm.

Though it's not important unless you can disprove all of the claims about John Punch, here's what the Mass. Body of Liberties says about slavery. "91. There shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, or captivity amongst us unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel concerning such persons cloth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority." This law does explain "bond slavery" and the rules and restrictions on it but then also acknowledges that these rules of bond slavery don't apply to people who are sentenced to slavery/servitude by authority. Thus, Mass. legalized slavery in 1640 by confirming that people can be sentenced to slavery by an authority.

It is a fact that Punch was sentenced to slavery in 1641 and therefore Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave in the English colonies. From what I've seen, your sources that try to claim this ignore John Punch and his trial and some of them, like Sweet, misrepresent the information from their own source like he did with "'Myne Owne Ground' Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore" where Timothy Breen says nothing about the Casor suit establishing slavery in Virginia or that Johnson was the first slave owner. Anyone with a neutral point of view can easily see that John Punch was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia and Casor wasn't. You try to muddle this conversation by using argumentum ad populum and pretending that the mainstream point of view has any relevance and what's worse, you're only asserting that it's the mainstream point of view, which is original research, and provide no sources that argue that it is the mainstream point of view. The facts of history are not dependent upon your opinion on what is the mainstream point of view. I'd also like to add that fairly recently there was a CNN article and many others confirming Obama's ancestry to the first slave in what would be the mainland United States, and that slave was John Punch. So if you wanted to argue "mainstream" I'm pretty sure this would trump anything you saw on Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yours is a straw man argument, you should have used Washington was the first white President of The United States of America to illustrate the reason for the removal of white.
• Spain is not relevant as the article notes it was only the British colonies. Any minor mistakes in parts are irrelevant ATM as the article is still being rewritten and the meaning is clear.
• where crime was not involved is already mentioned in the article but it is only a single source so due weight applies. The wording of the main claim is per multiple sources.
• Punch, in effect, became a slave. No one disputes that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery but legal slavery it was not and Toppin goes on to say exactly what the article does, that Casor was the first legal slave.
• Per Klein's created in practice, this does not have the same meaning as legally created.
• Neither of those sources were written by historians so have no bearing on the mainstream or minority view of historians.
• The wording actually says that bond slavery applies to all who are sentenced to servitude by authority, not does not apply as you claim.
• You have to be kidding. I am pretending that the mainstream point of view has relevance? That is the one of the Five Pillars of WP. You keep throwing up non-academic sources. The subject matter is such that many sources are bound to be PC or have bias so please provide sources from historians.
• Why are you undermining my use of academic sources by claiming that my sources include Glen Beck or Thetopconservativenews website? I'm not American so have no idea who Glen Beck is and I have never heard of that website. Wayne (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is not a strawman argument, it's an extreme example to demonstrate the flaw in your edits and explain to you how failing to properly qualify your statements leads to a factual inaccuracy.
• The article, as you intentionally left it in multiple revisions, said "the first slave owner in the mainland colonies." which is wrong for a number of reasons, one of them being that Spain had slaves since 1560. So it is relevant and your attempt to dismiss it as "an obvious mistake that everyone will be able to discern" is a poor attempt to mislead others.
• It still supports my argument and it makes the distinction because there were other slaves before John Casor legally sanctioned to slavery before 1654. To reword this without the proper qualifiers is to tell a factual lie.
• There you go again at failing to recognize descriptive qualifiers. Toppin only says Casor was the first to be made a slave in a "CIVIL CASE" because he acknowledges that Punch was a slave long before. Punch doesn't assert that indentured servitude was effectively the same as slavery, he says that the court ruling, in effect, made him a slave. If TOppin thought Casor was the first slave, then he wouldn't have qualified the statement with "civil case" the same way you don't need to qualify the statement "Washington was the first President of the U.S.A" by describing him as "white". "White" holds no relevance on Washington being the first President while "civil case" is completely relevant and necessary for his statement to be factually correct.
• You're ignoring the sentiment that Klein considered the Punch case as the first to recognize slavery as an institution and doesn't give any such merit to the Johnson case. You're trying to play with semantics and your interpretation of the meaning of words isn't going to change this fact. It's clear that you're violating WP:POV by not only ignoring the point Klein was making in regards to the development in slavery, but to disregard it as well.
• I didn't qualify my statement with "of historians" and neither did you in most of your usage of those terms. <--This is you making a strawman argument, btw. You try to make it sound like I was talking about mainstream and minority opinions "of historians" then try to dismiss my argument by saying they weren't from historians. Strawman all the way.
• No, this states that bond slavery is not allowed unless for prisoners of war that sell themselves or are sold to us. It then describes how those bond slaves should be treated. Then it says "This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority," meaning that this law does not exempt/free/apply to anyone who is sentenced to servitude/slavery by authority. Hence, they legally recognized slavery as a punishment for a crime in 1641.
• Whether it's mainstream or not has no relevance to the validity of the claim. That point aside, again you fail to provide any source that argues that CAsor was the first slave and not John Punch or submit any reliable source arguing that this is the mainstream view. This is simply your opinion and again shows your violation of WP:POV and WP:OR. I've used plenty of academic sources, some of them being your own used against you and last I checked, reliable sources are not limited to solely academic sources. So this argument you keep incorrectly asserting amounts to nothing and is yet another diversion from the fact that you can't validate your own claims.
• I wasn't using Glen Beck to undermine your sources, just your opinion on what constitutes as the mainstream view. However, I can easily undermine some of your sources since you insist on using books written for 11 year olds. It's like you trying to delete the "imaginary numbers" wikipedia entry because your 7th grade math book says "you can't have a square root of a negative number". Higher academia constantly constantly overturns or corrects discrepancies presented at lower learning levels. Klein's book is a collegiate level book that has much more detailed and accurate information than a general history book that skims over subjects and is intended for middle-schoolers.
• You're trying to argue that John Punch was not a slave and you haven't provided a single source that makes that argument. You haven't listed one here, you didn't list one on the talk page either. It is purely based on your own original research and is against wikipedia's policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get in an argument so I will be brief. The article says in the thirteen colonies and any mistakes like "mainland colonies" would be corrected during the rewrite. To argue that I intentionally leave such mistakes in the article is a violation of WP:NPA. So far none of your academic sources contradicts me despite your interpretation of them. One of my sources, Toppin, is considered one of the greatest authorities on African American history and he states that Casor was the first legal slave. He also states that blacks had worked as slaves in Maryland since the colony's founding in 1634 but he immediately qualifies it by saying that "the first Maryland law recognizing slavery did not come until in 1664" and this is what the article talks about...the legal standing of slavery, not what you or websites with no academic authority believe is slavery. Wayne (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Toppin, I have provided links and comments on the article discussion page. The work cited by Toppin is a textbook intended for juveniles -- once again not a reliable source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "intended for juveniles"? It was intended for high schools so I would like to think that such a book was a reliable source or I'd be rather concerned about your school system. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You had plenty of time for a rewrite yet you didn't change this language and you willingly and consistently reverted what I wrote back to the wrong statement. It's not against WP:NPA because we have multiple examples of you intentionally reverting it back to incorrect information. Also, we've already established that Toppin considered Punch a slave before Casor and he goes on to say that Casor was only the first slave resulting from a "civil case". If you leave out "civil case" it makes the statement incorrect and again, you're intentionally misrepresenting the source when you do this. From all of the sources and information provided, it clearly demonstrates that John Punch was a slave in Virginia before Casor. You have yet to disprove this or offer a source contesting this. Therefore, logically, if Punch was a legally recognized slave before Casor, then Casor can not be the first legally recognized slave and he's not. That's why the only sources you listed that weren't meant for an 11 year old said Casor was only the first legal slave where crime was not involved or because of a civil case. I'm still waiting for your sources that substantiate your claim that Punch wasn't a slave. You've yet to provide those while I have given many sources that substantiate my claim that Casor wasn't the first legally recognized slave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobydunk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How did I have "plenty of time for a rewrite" when you refused to allow me time to do it and were reverting my edits within minutes of my making them? I've put my case as have you. Rather than flood the page with irrelevant text leave it for other editors to comment on who they believe is right. Wayne (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe you requested time on Sep. 3 and as of Sep 7 you were still posting incorrect information based on OR and in violation of WP:POV. On top of that, you've been active on the Anthony Johnson page for over a year, that's PLENTY of time to do research on the subject and submit the most comprehensive and accurate information. To claim you didn't have enough time is intellectually dishonest and me making my own revisions doesn't affect the amount of time you had to do your rewrite especially since you disengaged from the discussion on Sept. 5, giving you 2 days to make changes. You've put your case and it has been proven wrong, not just by me, but by another editor as well. You've failed to disprove our claims and have avoided nearly every argument North Shoreman and I have made. Scoobydunk (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

After I first started the Johnson rewrite in February I got involved in a very complicated RfC which finished in July followed on the 16 July by an Arbitration case which ended in September so I had little time to research much of anything. You keep calling me intellectually dishonest yet you allowed only 12 hours after I asked for a few days to rewrite the article before you started reverting. Then I had two days of editing which you call "OR and in violation of WP:POV" before you started reverting just about everything I was doing. I challenge you to post the diffs to show that anything I added was OR or a violation of NPOV. Wayne (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No one cares about your excuses. You had plenty of time to make sure this page was filled with accurate information since you've been participating on it since March of 2012. Here's an example of your OR and POV. Here you try to argue that Punch was not a slave and was an indentured servant. You supplied no source arguing that he wasn't a slave because it was simply based on your own original research and the fact that you ignored the many documents and sources I gave you that confirmed he was a slave before Casor, you still make this inaccurate claim because you clearly don't have a neutral point of view. You further establish this in the talk page by making statements like "mainstream" and dismissing my multiple sources as "minority" when you actually provide no sources that argue that your position is the mainstream view and that Punch is the minority view. This is another example of your clear bias and original research. Challenge accomplished.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the original text on the left you may notice that the only new text I added in that edit was "This legal determination remained unsupported until 1662 when Virginia passed the first laws legalizing slavery, the legislation incorporated the doctrine of Partus sequitur ventrem, that the offspring of a slave took the status of the mother ad infinitum (forever) which was soon widely adopted by other colonies despite the doctrine directly contradicting common law" which pushed that paragraph to the end of the section which is why it is blue. The link for it specifically states that Punch was an indentured servant anyway and is more accurate and NPOV than the text you added; "Hugh Gwyn actually became the first lifelong slave owner in Virginia when the court granted him John Punch as a slave for life" which you referenced to a PBS television show. The word slave was never mentioned in the Punch court case and it was acknowledged that he was an indentured servant. While the word slave was also not used in the Casor case, the court found that he was not an indentured servant so a slave was all he could have been. The "many documents and sources" you gave are websites, few of which appear to be written by historians and all of which consider indentured servitude to be slavery. While no sources say what is the mainstream view the ones written by historians must carry more weight and especially if they are peer reviewed which I assume they are if used for school books as several were. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Though that may not have been the diff where you added that text, you did add that text nonetheless. Here's where you first added it and thus violated WP:POV and WP:OR . Your source, which was actually my source used to point out that JOhnson nor Casor played a role in the development of slavery in Virginia, only uses the Punch case to show how race started to play a factor when punishing indentured servants and doesn't make any reference to Punch's status after the case. So this doesn't contend or contradict the numerous historians I've cited throughout our discussion that have confirmed that Punch was sentenced to slavery, was the first legally recognized slave in Virginia, or acknowledged that the Punch case was one of the first that recognized slavery as an institution in the English colonies. Punch being recognized as a slave before Casor is the neutral point of view and you trying to argue that all of the historians and sources I've listed are "incorrect" is clearly based on your bias and original research, as you've yet to submit anything making this argument. It's also about time you stop pretending I've only used one source or only websites, because I've already listed collegiate books written by historians that support my position which inherently disprove yours.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Still ignoring Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources and insisting that high school textbooks are the best, or even acceptable, sources for this article. The numerous reliable sources I've quoted from on the article discussion page, which you refuse to comment on, do not call him the first slaveholder and find his historical significance elsewhere. A bibliographic essay summarizing all of the significant writings on the origins of slavery in Virginia does not even indicate that the Casor case is part of the debate. You are only cherry picking isolated quotes from whatever sources you can find online that support your own position -- you have not demonstrated that the position you are advocating is a mainstream view among historians. The actual mainstream historians, rather than focusing on a county court decision, look to the legislative record and find that in Virginia laws recognizing slavery didn't start being enacted until the 1660's, well after the Casor decision. The court decision only confirmed what was already common -- blacks being held for life as slaves. Edmund S. Morgan in the source quoted on the article's discussion page identifies recorded deeds showing ownership of slaves with language such as "a Negro woman and all her increase (which for future tyme shall bee borne of her body)." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also of note from the Alden T. Vaughan journal article discussed on the article's talk page: A Virginia law of 1643 provided that 'WHEREAS divers controversies have risen between masters and servants being brought into the collony without indentures . . . Be it therefor enacted. . . that such servants as shall be imported haveing no indentures or covenants either men or women if they be above twenty year old to serve fowre year,if they shall be above twelve and under twenty to serve five years. And if under twelve to serve seaven years'(Hening, ed., Statutes,I, 257). This law almost certainly did not apply to Africans, who were sold as contraband in Virginia; by international law and British custom, they could be held in lifetime servitude. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That link is a reversion of false information ("Johnson vs Parker was the first time Virginia legally recognized that blacks could own indentured servants") to the previous version, not an addition of text. You reply still does change the fact that slavery (contraband) was not legal. "Blacks being held for life as slaves"...so what? White indentured servants were also held for life or sentenced to a life of servitude for crimes. Your argument does not change the fact that Punch was one of the first legal cases to show different treatment between blacks and whites (whites had been sentenced to life of servitude before but in Punches case three servants who committed the same crime together were sentenced differently) while the Casor case was the first instance of a legally recognized slave.
Ben Kinchlow (Black Yellow Dogs): "Anthony Johnson must be recognized as the nation's first official legal slaveholder." Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa (African American Chronology): "This case helps to establish slavery as a legally binding institution." Ira Berlin (Many Thousands Gone): "Into the middle years of the seventeenth century and perhaps later, slaves enjoyed the same benefits extended to white servants." Adam Miller (Discovering A Lost Heritage): "As a result, Johnson thereby became America's first holder of black slaves for life." John Henrik Clarke (Slave trade and slavery): "This was the first recorded civil case... establishing a person as a slave for life." Richard Asaolu (Slavery): "In 1654, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave." Wayne (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, now the bias comes out in full force.

• Literally in the same sentence you quoted from "Black Yellow Dogs" Kinchlow says "(not for a crime)" and he also admits this earlier in the essay. Your purposefully ignoring "not for a crime" to benefit your own agenda is intellectually dishonest and against WP:POV. On top of that, since Kinchlow recognizes that people were sentenced to slavery as a result of crime before the JOhnson v PArker case, then there is NO reason accept that Johnson was the first slave holder.
• Next you quote a book by Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa. What you quoted says "helps to establish slavery" but it doesn't assert that it "did" establish slavery. We already know there were many factors that caused the evolution of slavery but this wasn't the first nor only instance that established it. On top of that Kwando Mbiassi Kinshasa confirms my other points that Mass. legally recognized slavery in 1641 and that "Connecticut gives statutory recognition to slavery" in 1650. Again, you ignore these points to try and stick to your claim that Johnson was the first slave owner in the English colonies, which is clearly not true.
• Then you quote Adam Miller who wrote a ridiculously biased and factually wrong book with the purpose of characterizing historical facts as "myths" and trying to debunk them. In the section regarding Anthony Johnson, he says that white Europeans were not the ones to introduce slavery to America. You've already admitted that Spain had slavery in their colonies in 1560 which predates the Johnson case by 90 years. So right off the bat this author is clearly not an expert on the history of slavery in America. On top of that he uses "The Free Negro in Virginia" written by Jack Henderson Russell as his source besides Virginia land deeds. In his book, Russell describes John Punch as follows "...while 'the third, being a negro,' was reduced from his former condition of servitude for a limited time to a condition of slavery for life." Russell references this case explaining how slavery became an established fact between 1640-1660. Russell doesn't stop there though, he goes on to explain the importance of Johnson v. Parker case by saying it introduced 3 propositions. The first being that there were negroes in the colony that were servants by indenture under the laws of servitude. The second being that some negro servants who became free also owned indentured servants of their own. And finally, He says it showed how difficult it was for Africans to escape being reduced to slavery. He doesn't recognize it as establishing slavery or for being the first of anything, so clearly Adam Miller ignored the majority of the content in his own source to suit his personal narrative. Miller was debunked by his own source, how embarrassing.
• I don't even need to touch on John Clarke since he qualifies his statement with the words "civil case". Interesting to know that Clarke referenced Toppin who asserted that John Punch was a slave due to the ruling in the Punch Case but doesn't mention anything about John Punch in his book. Bit of a bias maybe?
• And lastly, we have Richard Asaolu who, like Sweet, contradicts your quoted statement in the preceding sentence. Asaolu says "However, by 1640, the Virginia courts had sentenced at least one black servant to slavery." So if the courts legally recognized that at least one black person had been sentenced to slavery by 1640, how can Casor possibly be the first legally recognized slave in 1654? Now, maybe if you want to change "first legally recognized" to "first to have been found a slave all along" then that would be a more accurate and comprehensive phrasing based on all of the sources we've both provided but that still doesn't make Johnson the first slave owner in any way shape or form, since there were legally recognized slave owners before him like Hugh Gwyn who owned John Punch.

I also want to note that the sources you've listed that say Johnson v. Parker "helps establish" or "became the basis" for slavery don't actually cite any court cases, laws, or decisions that were directly influenced by it or directly referenced it. They merely assert those claims without explaining or proving how.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And he also misrepresents Berlin. Berlin does not claim that Johnson was the first of anything. Berlin notes that "the ambiguous language of 'slavery' and 'servitude' has become entangled in an all-encompassing discussion of the origins of racism in British North America. ... Admitting that little is known about the first arrivals and that only imperfectly, I have presumed them to be slaves in that they were sold by international slave traders and purchased by men familiar with the existence of African slavery in the Atlantic. That they were treated like servants in a society in which servants composed the vast majority of bound laborers and that some gained their freedom or aced as free men and women (as did servants) does not alter this presumption, since slavery took many different forms in early Virginia , as it did throughout the Atlantic world."

Wayne's claim "that slavery (contraband) was not legal" before the Casor case is simply bizarre. The legality of slavery had been accepted for centuries and nothing done by the Virginia or other legislatures had done anything to make it illegal. What the Massachusetts action in 1641 had done (and what later actions in other colonies would do -- or the earlier actions by the Dutch in New Netherland) was to simply acknowledge that local laws were needed to regulate the form slavery would take as it expanded and evolved in the colonies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Programme:Talk

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Needle exchange programme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Minphie (talk · contribs)
• Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute between myself, Minphie, and Stigmatella auratiaca over whether text describing a review of needle exchange effectiveness by the United States Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine is correct or misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk page and requests for two Third Opinions which both suggested mediation.

How do you think we can help?

A third party might add some clarity to differences.

Summary of dispute by Stigmatella aurantiaca

User:Minphie posts exclusively in opposition to Harm Reduction.

Regarding the current dispute on Needle Exchange Programs, Minphie has selectively quoted, on multiple occasions and out of context, single words and sentence fragments from Chapter 3 of a 2006 US Institute of Medicine study, stating that "the evidence for the effectiveness of NSPs in preventing HIV was 'inconclusive' and that 'multiple studies show that NSEs do not reduce transmission of HCV(Hepatitis C).' "

Through such selective quote mining, Minphie makes it seem that the report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease. In reality, the authors carefully note that the inconclusiveness of available studies is due to unavoidable deficiencies of the study designs. It is practically and ethically impossible to conduct randomized controlled trials, and researchers must rely on study designs of far lower statistical power, such as cohort studies and ecological studies.

The following is a revised version of an alternative chapter summary that I offered, which Minphie rejected:

The available evidence shows that multi-component HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange have clear beneficial effects in reducing drug-related risk behaviors, although the statistical power of the available studies (mostly cohort studies) have been inadequate to actually prove that NSPs reduce HIV incidence rates. Multiple ecological studies show a positive correlation between implementation or expansion of NSP programs and a reduction in HIV prevalence, although it should be noted that correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship. The statistical power of cohort studies have been inadequate to prove that NSPs reduce rates of HCV transmission and acquisition, although a single case-control study reported a dramatic reduction. Not enough studies have been performed examining the possibility of NSPs having undesired unintended consequences; the few existing studies on this point do not point to NSPs having unintended negative effects. Overall, although many of the studies have design limitations, the consistency of these results across a large number of studies supports the conclusion that NSPs have an important beneficial role in the fight against HIV and HCV. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Minphie

It was User:Gabbe that first placed the science on the effectiveness of NEPs front and centre of the Misplaced Pages Needle Exchange Programme article , a prominence given to the science that I believe is aligned with the need for evidence-based drug policy internationally.

User:Stigmatella aurantiaca has alleged on the Talk page, and backed this by constant deletions of my text, that I misrepresent, in the relevant Misplaced Pages article, the most authoritative review on needle exchange effectiveness completed in 2006 by the US Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (which had backed NEPs since the 1990s before the current science was in). To this charge I assert that:

1. Stigmatella's suggested replacement wording could not possibly be acceptable because it implies, inadvertently or otherwise, that the 11 journal studies rigorous enough to meet the US IOM criteria for review are individually not statistically significant or somehow individually lack 'statistical power'. This is certainly not the case. The discredited 2004 WHO review which had concluded that the science did indeed demonstrate NEP effectiveness re HIV incidence found 3 studies which were negative for NEP effectiveness, all of which were statistically significant. The 2004 WHO review found 6 studies which they said demonstrated NEP effectiveness, however three were discarded by the IOM - one did not even study comparison populations, and the other two were inconclusive on their researchers' own admissions in-article. Two of the remaining 3 WHO positives were (statistically significant) ecological studies, which the IOM clearly says are unable to demonstrate any causality. But this is a far cry from lack of statistical power or lack of statistical significance for individual studies - it is rather that the studies positive for NEP are balanced equally against studies which are negative making any conclusion other than that the science is inconclusive inevitable. Questions on the validity of case-control studies vs RCTs, for instance, are not irrelevant, but neither are they determinative for the 'inconclusive' finding by the IOM.
2. The two 2010 Palmateer-initiated reviews of reviews found (correctly) that "there is insufficient evidence that NSP prevents transmission of the Hepatitis C virus", yet Stigmatella's wording suggests that this is wrong, and that the US IOM, which concurs with the Palmateer finding, is somehow the result of lack of statistical power in journal studies when in fact the balance of the studies do not demonstrate effectiveness (only one does) and that lack of demonstrated effectiveness is universally bemoaned, in print, by some of the world's most recognised proponents of NEP. Stigmatella's wording is optimistically misleading.
3. At no place have I ever stated or implied, as Stigmatella asserts, that "the (IOM) report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease." In fact I additionally quote verbatim their conclusion that multi-component programs which include NEPs have demonstrated effectiveness. Stigmatella charges that I have not referenced the IOM recommendations re NEP, but this is simply because I am addressing the science - their recommendations are a separate matter and can be covered in the Research section.

In summary, I have not misrepresented the US IOM report but rather given a verbatim rendition of its conclusions on the science. Stigmatella's interpretation leads to a more optimistic rendition of the science than is actually the case which will only open Misplaced Pages to the charge of being a source of biased rather than neutral or balanced information for the public. Minphie (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Programme:Talk discussion

Wow, uh.. I'm going to spend tonight (and maybe more time) looking through the talkpage and previous discussion, and I'll comment further then. From a first look, I'm not sure DRN can offer anything more than just my uninvolved opinion - since I can't make anything binding, it's worth about $0.02. However, if I see some room for help, I'll be glad to help. ~Charmlet 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry that there is such a huge amount to wade through. Over the years, quite a number of people have been at odds with Minphie, and this is not the first time that Minphie has used selective quote-mining, original research, and fanciful misreadings to distort the conclusions of source material. Here is an example from before I joined Misplaced Pages:

• User:Figs Might Ply/Minphie#Harm reduction

Here are a selected few sections (out of many!) from talk pages of articles that I've not been involved with:

• Talk:Supervised injection site#Misrepresentation of sources
• Talk:Harm reduction/Archive 2#Evidence & validity of Harm Minimisation as public health
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive86#Consensus.2C_Cooperation_.26_Civility_with_response_from_user_in_question

Minphie once also raised vandalism charges in an attempt to silence an editor who disagreed with his edits. — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I will spend some time tomorrow to do a summary of my side of the dispute, (I have been time-poor this week) however I cannot let the above comments about disruptive editing pass without comment as it may serve to prejudice an understanding of the real issues between us. 1. Stigmatella raises issues of allegations by Figs Might Ply from 2010. Go to the Sockpuppet Misplaced Pages page back around that time and it will be found that Rakkar and Figs Might Ply were the same contributor, subsequently blocked. Another party in that dispute, Steinberger, who figures in the Wikiquette complaint with Rakkar and sockpuppet Figs Might Ply, was blocked subsequently here for this discussion, and was the subject of my vandalism complaint. Read LiteratureGeek's comments on his behaviour at the time of the block and I don't believe I have any case to answer here. The Misrepresentation of Sources thread, if looked at in date order for that section, reveals that there was no misrepresentation of sources - the final comment in that section was made before my final reply to what was a baseless allegation. I guess that my concern here is that all of this has nothing to do with content, but rather behaviour, as baseless as these allegations were, and that we need to talk content only in a mediated forum. This does not mean that I am unwilling to answer any allegations re behaviour, as I have nothing whatsoever I am embarrassed about on Misplaced Pages when all the facts are known and verified, but content is the focus of mediation. Minphie (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just based on this, I think this is too intertwined with a conduct issue for me to feel comfortable that I'd help you get to a resolution. I won't close this yet, but unless another volunteer picks it up, I think the best bet may be to hold RfC(s) on the content side of it, and take any conduct concerns to the appropriate channels. This is bigger (it seems to me) than one lowly person (me) can solve. ~Charmlet 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I sorta thought that might be the case. Minphie versus the rest of the world is an ongoing struggle. He/she doesn't believe in consensus and never gives up. I only happen to be the latest in a long line of editors who've unwillingly gotten dragged into this mudfight. Thanks for your efforts! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

From another DRN volunteer. While a RFC may be the appropriate next turn, I suggest that we wait until Minphie expresses a summary of the other point(s) of view here. I deleted two post scripts by Stigmatella aurantiaca that were not relevant to this discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Rambus

No extensive talk page discussion as required as a prerequisite by this noticeboard. If other editor will not discuss, consider using the technique suggested here, but you may not get a response since that editor is an intermittently-editing newcomer. (Such editors often vanish.) Instead, you might want to consider this: As a COI editor you should not make your requested edits yourself, but you should call attention to the fact that you want them to be done by using the {{request edit}} template on the talk page (instructions here). Remember that here at Misplaced Pages there is no hurry. It could take weeks to months before your requests are reviewed, but use of the template will probably speed it up. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:RealClearPolitics

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• TParis (talk · contribs)
• goethean (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
• DD2K (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute concerning whether a source supports the statement that the article's subject was founded by conservatives.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, offering an alternative.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by TParis

After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.

Summary of dispute by Goethean

It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.

The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....

...

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:

This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....

The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.

A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.

The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Misplaced Pages over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arzel

There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.

McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".

This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.

I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DD2K

Talk:RealClearPolitics discussion

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