Revision as of 15:57, 7 July 2015

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 16:46, 16 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

Kashmir conflict

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Human3015 (talk · contribs)
• CosmicEmperor (talk · contribs)
• Faizan (talk · contribs)
• 39.47.50.14 (talk · contribs)
• 115.186.146.225 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At issue is the last paragraph of the lead, which covers the 2014 elections. Two versions can be seen in this diff. The older version is preferred by Faizan and the IPs involved. The newer (condensed) version, I believe, is at the right level of detail appropriate for a lead. This has been termed "bowdlerizing" by Faizan. He and the IPs seem to want to retain a direct quote of the Chief Minister, and they would also prefer to eliminate the acknowledgement by the EU that the elections were "free and fair" and that the election turnout was highest in 25 years. Human3015 and CosmicEmperor at the other end do not want any mention of the separatists and Pakistan at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At my request for intervention, the page has been semi-protected because the IPs were edit-warring. A talk page discussion ensued at Talk:Kashmir conflict#Election 2014, which has failed to reach agreement.

How do you think we can help?

Please tell us what is appropriate for the lead.

Summary of dispute by Human3015

• IPs want that remarks of EU regarding Kashmir election should be removed and only personal opinion of Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed should be included. Statement of Mufti giving credit to Pakistan for elections is his personal statement and not official statement of Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The coalition government in J & K also includes Bharatiya Janata Party which condemned this statement. Means the government which he lead itself don't support his statement, and neither his statement is supported by any other independent group or organization.
• While statement by EU giving credit to India for free and fair elections in Jammu and Kashmir is really mentionable thing. Read sources in article lead, it is not any employee of EU who congratulated India, it is European Parliament who congratulated India, that parliament consists of official representatives of 27 European nations. Involved IPs want to delete statement by parliament of 27 nations and want to keep random politically motivated statement by local leader which is not even supported by his own government.
• Controversial leaders from India and Pakistan gives controversial statements regarding Kashmir issue on daily basis, but European Parliament don't congratulate anyone on daily basis.

Summary of dispute by CosmicEmperor

The statements are added to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 but can't be added to Kashmir conflict. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be concise. We are not going to mention every minute detail about a topic. A statement by a present Chief Minister, made at a time, when she was not elected as a chief minister of JK, is too trivial to be added to that page.A statement by present Chief Minister when she was not elected as chief minister (Clearing doubts about He/She).

Summary of dispute by Faizan

@Kautilya3 Please do not associate me with those IPs. I support your bowdlerized version, as it correctly summarizes the text that is to be put in the lead. I don't want the full direct quotes. I don't want the removal of EU's report about the elections terming them free and fair? How did you get to this conclusion? In short, I even made a minor change after your edit, and I support this version. Faizan (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 39.47.50.14

Kautilya3's description of dispute is in itself disputed please Refer talk page discussion on the basis of which in my humble opinion a reliably sourced (The Hindu & Times of India), neutral, brisk for lead, avoiding copyright and most importantly in a logical sequence para should be read as. “In election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states however it was better than 40% recorded in 2009 for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.”

No one objected to free or fairness of election so it is not important here. 27 member country EU statement should be on election article as well as 57 member country OIC's post election declaration for inalienable right to self-determination of kashmiris and Pakistan & china foreign ministry releases post election. Human3015 said Mufti statement is political but are we here to judge whether any ones statement was political or scientific? sorry to say but CosmicEmperor is so non knowledgeable to this article's background that he/she is using "she" for "male" Cheif minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed. I think 115.186.146.225 thanked NeilN for his warning for edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. i leave this investigation on you. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 115.186.146.225

I will also put this para as mentioned by IP 39.... ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. In state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections."

Thank you IP 39... for such an effective advocacy mentioning my concern for offwiki collaboration of Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor. In fact Dispute is larger then this para we are fighting against few national hatred editors collaborating with their watch list full of indo pak articles as referred by you on talkpage "1. Whenever some one edit with pro kashmiri/pakistani insertion. One editor from this group deletes that with comments "Unsourced" 2. If he provides source then one of editor from this group deletes that with comments "Not a reliable source" 3. If he provides reliable source then one of editor from group deletes that with comments "Not a Newspaper" 4. If he re-edits to comply with WP not a news paper then one editor from this group deletes that with comments "No Concensus take to talk page" 5. In the mean while on the basis of three revert rule this group make that article protected. 6. If he tries talk page consensus this group editors converge and deny consensus and say original research. 7. Then they provoke that person in to heat of the moment and get him banned and then prove any new editor as socks of already banned users on same articles. In reality this group by themselves is a large sick nationalist socko master. 8. In the end they laugh on banned user like this https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users . RIP wikipedia neutrality.

I Hope strongly that this time administrators do not finish this dispute by declaring us socks of some blocked sick pakistani nationalist editor. We are only providing indian sources and indians own comments in support of our para. Nationalist from whichever country should be banned to set an example in a way that no one can misuse rules to gain undue advantage. Kindly https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions should be utilized to maximum effect to remove this curse keeping in view these editors contributions log and articles history on Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts Jammu_and_Kashmir Kashmir_conflict Gilgit-Baltistan Azad_Kashmir and so on. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms
2. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mehbooba-defends-muftis-remarks-on-pakistan/article6951674.ece

Kashmir conflict discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page, so that the issue is ripe for dispute resolution. A question for the coordinator is whether, in view of the number of participants and the nature of the topic, which lends itself to battleground editing because it is a real battleground, this board is the best venue, or whether formal mediation might be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also, there is a thread at WP:ANI concerning the issues at this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I am Steve. I have collapsed the above discussion and will not be addressing it's contents as I do not feel it will be productive. I will be personally handling this case. I will be reading over the article in question and the associated talk page today. Until I comment further here, I ask that there is no further discussion on the topic - I understand you all may have different points of view here, my role is to help you all come to a conclusion that you can all live with. More to follow soon - in the interim, go have some tea, or something :) Steven Zhang 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I was late. Please do consider my comments on dispute in my allocated space before making any decision. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think now main issue is between auto-confirmed users and IPs, as per my perception no involved confirmed user have any issues relating to current version of lead which seems neutral.(In addition page has 203 watchers who didn't objected yet). So only two IPs have some issues relating to it, and till now those IPs not given any valid reason for their proposed changes which seems biased. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 you should respect what Steve ordered us above to stop any further non productive arguments. You are not here to decide what is valid or not it is steve. This is beauty of WP that it gives all of us a chance to appeal irrespective how senior or junior, registered or non registered, 5 against 1 or 5 against 5 editors. Whatever he will decide i shall accept it by heart and request you all to respect his authority. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK, a few things. IP editor or admin, your opinions matter equally. I don't buy the "only IP's disagree therefore their argument is inherently invalid" idea. Arguments have to be weighed on their merits. Additionally, it's not my role to "decide" on anything, but to guide and facilitate discussion to help form a consensus that you can, in most cases, live with, but most importantly, that fits within Misplaced Pages policy. Now, a brief request. It appears there are two proposed article ledes here. Without any additional commentary, can a diff (link in the article history to the version of the article) to the alternatively proposed article lede be posted here for me to review (assuming that the current article lede is the second and current version). Thanks. Steven Zhang 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Steven Zhang:, I gave a link to the diff in my original dispute summary: . If we can first discuss the pro's and con's of the two versions here, that would be a start. We can get to the other variants if need be. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Current lead as supported by group users is this "However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voter turnout in the last 25 years. European Union has called the elections "free and fair" and took cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for boycott by separatist groups.The elected Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed has remarked that the separatists and militants supported by Pakistan did not attempt to disrupt the voting in this round of elections.While former chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said Pakistan and militants have tried their best to destabilise the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir"

• Proposed lead by both IPs is this "In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. In state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• • IP has given current version and their proposed version. Following is pre-dispute original version.

• "However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces."Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "J & K records historic polling percentage: EC". The Hindu. 20 December 2014.
2. "Jammu and Kashmir registers highest voter turnout in 25 years, Jharkhand breaks records". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
3. "J&K polls: 76 per cent voter turnout recorded in the final phase". IBNLive. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
4. "Jammu and Kashmir Registers Highest Voter Turnout in 25 Years, Jharkhand Breaks Records". NDTV.com. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. ^ ANI (11 December 2014). "European Parliament welcomes elections in Jammu and Kashmir". Business Standard. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
6. The Office of MEP Kosma Zlotowski (10 December 2014). "The European Parliament Welcomes the Elections in Jammu & Kashmir". PR Newswire. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
7. "EU hails huge turnout in J&K". Jammu Kashmir Latest News - Tourism - Breaking News J&K. Daily Excelsior. Retrieved 10 April 2015.

All three versions are referenced but for sake of ease to read and compare; I have removed references from oldest version added by Human3015; and bared it all in three comparative paras; It was not pre dispute version. It was version we IPs first objected and disputed but then playing clever india sock group got page protection and further added pro india unnessary details /refrences to arrive at POV push imposed "current version'. so finally dispute is between current version and IPs proposed version.

and proposed para is as follows ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. In state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections." 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms
2. "Jammu and Kashmir registers highest voter turnout in 25 years, Jharkhand breaks records". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
3. "J&K polls: 76 per cent voter turnout recorded in the final phase". IBNLive. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
4. "Jammu and Kashmir Registers Highest Voter Turnout in 25 Years, Jharkhand Breaks Records". NDTV.com. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mehbooba-defends-muftis-remarks-on-pakistan/article6951674.ece

On talk page of kashmir conflict IP 115.186.146.225 rightly pointed out that Disputed para in the lead be removed. It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last ten days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation.Whistle blowing is encouraged world wide so whistle blowers opinion should be respected here. I tried to remove this but see here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history how Human 3015 is controlling this page and he also tried to intimidate by giving warnings me on my talk page in the name of 3 revert rule even though i tried it two times.39.47.50.14 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Administrative Note: The moderator User:Steven Zhang has indicated he will be off WP for several days due to a family emergency. Would the participants like to wait until he returns? Or would they like to close the case the case and move on? Please let us know. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We would like to wait and wish best to The moderator User:Steven Zhang for family emergency. Hope he will be blessed by god and on his return he will do the justice. User:Keithbob during this waiting period Disputed last para of the lead about election 2014 be removed. It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last fifteen days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: The edit-warring continued during the waiting period, and the page is under full-protection. If possible, I would like to request for a replacement moderator so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Steven Zhang is now back on WP......... Steve, perhaps you could ping the participants and let them know. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If Steve is not available or not very active then it is ok to go with pre-dispute original version and close this case and move on. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Steven Zhang hope with blessing of God you must have relieved from family emergency. I agree with Human3015 that disputed election 2014 para should be removed altogether to go to pre-dispute status. Specially because election 2014 are already covered in detail in separate article here Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 . 115.186.146.225 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 115.186.146.225 for agreeing with me lastly, now IP also want to restore pre-dispute version, thats good. Thats why I already restored original pre-dispute version before page gets protected. Hope this matter will be closed now. Thanks. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 you read again what IP 115.186.146.225 said. He wants to remove disputed para all togather about election 2014 which was inserted by you and disputed by him and me. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your patience while I had to attend to Real Life™. Where are things at here - it appears we may have some agreement? Steven Zhang 11:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  Steven Zhang, Thanks for getting back. Our sympathies for your loss. The status of this dispute is still the same as what it was when I filed the request. The IP's would like the text to be Pakistan-oriented. Human3015 and I disagree. (CosmicEmperor is now out of the picture.) I suggest that we can start from the diff and figure out where to go from there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang, Thanks for getting back hope you will be fine. No kautilya3 it is not about this difference. Please see below both paras proposed by each party.

• Recently blocked sock user CosmicEmperor and his online collaborators see https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users kautilya3 and Human3015 apparently ( pro indian group) want this version."However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces."
• and IPs proposed para is as follows ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. However in state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections." 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms
2. "Jammu and Kashmir registers highest voter turnout in 25 years, Jharkhand breaks records". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
3. "J&K polls: 76 per cent voter turnout recorded in the final phase". IBNLive. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
4. "Jammu and Kashmir Registers Highest Voter Turnout in 25 Years, Jharkhand Breaks Records". NDTV.com. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mehbooba-defends-muftis-remarks-on-pakistan/article6951674.ece

Steven Zhang, Welcome back, kindly note that IP is keep on playing blame game, he is accusing us as "Pro-Indian", "Collaborators" etc. But in reality we are just following wikipedia policies. See recent edit history of Kashmir conflict, current version is accepted by everyone, there is nothing "pro-indian" in it, it just what is relevant in article lead. This IP wanted to remove it from lead but reverted by 4 experienced users,, , , now does entire Misplaced Pages is "Pro-Indian"? Later admin protected the page on current version then again IP started blame game of "Admin is biased".. Current version is accepted by everyone, even many "Pakistani" users have same page on watchlist but no one objecting it except this IP. Though I do believe that WP:IPs are humans too, but this IP is clear cut nationalist and want to add unilateral claims. You can see he don't want EU's views in lead, is it even matter of debate? This IP is just wasting time of community. Better we should close the discussion. --Human3015 knock knock • 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 please read kautilya3 comment (just above my comment) he started blame game against us IPs that we want Pakistan version, that is why I gave your group proposed para which is clearly "Pro-Indian" and i also gave details of you boths "Collaborations" with blocked user CosmicEmperor against user Pakistani commondo force etc. In recent edit history of Kashmir conflict User IP 39...... was trying to remove disputed para under discussion till honorable Steven Zhang decide here but you denied that by playing clever and getting page protected two times. You even tried to get IP 39.... blocked by trapping him in 3 revert rule using your indian buddy user Rsrikanth65 (who also comes to support your 3 revert game) but admins denied blockign IP 39......In fact by doing so you are not respecting this forum's importance. I believe in Steven Zhang decision so waiting for that keeping in view both parties proposed paras as i reproduced by me in my last comment above. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We can also start with this diff, when IPs added unilateral statement of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed which is neither welcomed in India(Kashmir) nor welcomed by any other international authority even there is no evidence that Pakistan government officially welcomed statement of Mufti, so there should have been counter statement to Mufti's statement so my given difference shows counter statement by ex-Chief Minister of Kashmir, that statement is just representative of many such counter statements. But still my stand will be we should retain pre-dispute version(current version) as adding trival statements of Mufti not even supported by his government don't deserve place in lead of parent article of conflict. (For references read collapsed discussion above)--Human3015 knock knock • 11:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 we have already heard 100 times your POV on mufti statement; All talk page discussion is filled with that. Let us all stop (including me) repeating our stances and leave Steven Zhang to decide as soon as he can to decide between following these two paras

• Recently blocked user CosmicEmperor, kautilya3 and Human3015 want this version."However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces."
• and IPs want this para ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. However in state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections." 39.47.66.246 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms
2. "Jammu and Kashmir registers highest voter turnout in 25 years, Jharkhand breaks records". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
3. "J&K polls: 76 per cent voter turnout recorded in the final phase". IBNLive. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
4. "Jammu and Kashmir Registers Highest Voter Turnout in 25 Years, Jharkhand Breaks Records". NDTV.com. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/mehbooba-defends-muftis-remarks-on-pakistan/article6951674.ece

• Currant version accepted by the Community(except two IPs) is :

"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces." --Human3015 knock knock • 16:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "J & K records historic polling percentage: EC". The Hindu. 20 December 2014.
2. "Jammu and Kashmir registers highest voter turnout in 25 years, Jharkhand breaks records". Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
3. "J&K polls: 76 per cent voter turnout recorded in the final phase". IBNLive. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
4. "Jammu and Kashmir Registers Highest Voter Turnout in 25 Years, Jharkhand Breaks Records". NDTV.com. 20 December 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
5. ^ ANI (11 December 2014). "European Parliament welcomes elections in Jammu and Kashmir". Business Standard. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
6. The Office of MEP Kosma Zlotowski (10 December 2014). "The European Parliament Welcomes the Elections in Jammu & Kashmir". PR Newswire. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
7. "EU hails huge turnout in J&K". Jammu Kashmir Latest News - Tourism - Breaking News J&K. Daily Excelsior. Retrieved 10 April 2015.

Human3015 How can you call it consensus because election were held in the end of 2014 so this para was on this page in last four months with out any talk page consensus. We all have already assumed it disputed by entering this DRN. Now respect this DRN. Read above it has been cleared to you so many times that one IP or two IP or ten IP, WP have a fair system of DRN so stop repeating your POV to diverge attention of moderator. Steve please read paras proposed by both parties above and decide soon please. 39.47.66.246 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Thanks all for your patience. I'm going to nip this in the bud, as I see there has been quite a bit of edit warring on this matter. For the record, I reviewed the history of the article and as per Misplaced Pages policy, an article is normally full protected at a pre-dispute version, if one is known to exist. In this situation, the text existed for some time before it was challenged, hence it's protection on the current version. Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of which version of content came first.

I'll post about my opinion of the two proposed sections in a few minutes. Steven Zhang 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with a few comments. One, like all of you, I'm just a volunteer here on Misplaced Pages. While I have been doing dispute resolution for many years, I don't have any special authority to make a decision. That said, I would hope that as an uninvoled editor in this matter, that my opinion on the matter would be considered.

After reviewing the two proposed versions of the content, I believe the one that is currently in the article is the one that complies with Misplaced Pages policy more than the other, specifically in this case the one about undue weight. The main difference between the two apart from some wording differences is that one mentions a comment made by the European Union and the other mentions a comment made by the Chief Minister of the state Mufti Muhammad Sayeed.

Part of me wonders why the comments made by the European Union need to be in the article, since references 6 and 7 are just website re-publishing the press release by one member of the EU Parliament (though it does state it is on behalf of the EU Parliament, it is a press release). I don't feel in an article of this size, it needs to be included.

Likewise, the reference given from Mufti Sayeed should not be included in the article per undue weight. The reference speaks about how the daughter of Sayeed defends his comments, which as per the reference is disagreed with by many. It appears to be the opinion of him only - and to include such a quote in the article would be giving the opinion of one person far more weight than it deserves.

I'd go for simplicity here. Cut it down the middle. All parties have quoted the same references with regards to the voter turnout at the election. From the references I've read (namely references 1,2, and 4 in the current article text) the sources state that this election had the highest voter turnout in 25 years. So simply state that. I see no need to mention anything else.

There are currently two sections that mention this. The lede section, which currently has four paragraphs. Easy fix. Delete paragraph four in it's entirety, and add this text instead to the end of paragraph three, citing references 1, 2, and 4 I have previously referred to - "However, elections held in 2014 registered the highest voter turnout for the state in 25 years."

The other section (titled "2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections"), the first part which states: "The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 was held in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in five phases from November 25 to December 20, 2014. Despite repeated boycott calls by separarist Hurriyat leaders, elections recorded highest voters turnout in last 25 years, that is more than 65% which is more than usual voting percentage in other states of India."

The first sentence is fine. The second sentence, remove "repeated" - you have one reference and the word repeated isn't mentioned there at all - it's called. the word separatist is fine - references describe them as such. Hurriyat isn't mentioned in that article, and one should not have to look at a Misplaced Pages article, then a reference, then a google search of someone mentioned there to find an affiliation. I'd say just go with "despite calls to boycott the election by separatists. Part of the sentence after the comma is fine, but go with " elections recorded the highest voter turnout in 25 years".

Lastly, after the table of voter turnout, delete the entire passage about the EU (namely "The European Parliament, on the behalf of European Union, welcomed the smooth conduct of the State Legislative Elections in the Jammu and Kashmir. The EU in its message said that, "The high voter turnout figure proves that democracy is firmly rooted in India. The EU would like to congratulate India and its democratic system for conduct of fair elections, unmarred by violence, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir". The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.)

Lastly, delete this reference and all mentions of it - it adds no value to the text it cites as it is already supported by other references which actually state what is in the article text - this one does not.

This is my opinion on the matter - I hope you will take time to review it. I would like responses to the above to be no more than 200 words, solely referring to the content of my comments and not referring to each other in any way, shape or form. It's late in Australia here so I will review comments in the morning. Steven Zhang 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How Election are important if election winner is not? Then why we are covering such non important elections of 44% kashmir in the lead of whole 100% Kashmir conflict? Why National assembly lowest turnover with in indian states (with india source) not important? If 27 member EU statement is important then why 57 member OIC, other parties to conflict China Pakistan foreign statement declaring election not substitute to UN plebiscite important? These all questions are for User:Steven Zhang because others have already told their nationalist view on it. User:Steven Zhang See these further references and please provide your proposed para for lead. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hurriyat-Pak-allowed-conducive-atmosphere-for-polls-JK-CM-Mufti-Sayeed-says/articleshow/46418871.cms and http://www.dawn.com/news/1166786 and http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/i-stand-by-my-statement-on-pakistan-and-hurriyat-jk-cm-mufti-mohammad-sayeed/ http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=05_02_2015_001_008 http://nation.com.pk/islamabad/25-Apr-2014/ihk-polls-no-alternative-to-plebiscite-fo http://www.dawn.com/news/1168818 http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=05_02_2015_001_008 39.47.110.63 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@39.47 - You're under 200 words, but I'm afraid I do not understand your questions or comments or how it relates to what I've stated. This part applies to all of you - as parties you came here asking about two alternatives to a portion of the lead section, and I've given my view on the topic at hand. It's late here and this will be my last comment this evening, but to 39.47, please rewrite your above comment and focus solely on the dispute that is at hand (the two proposed texts for the lede section, and not focus on any other matter, or comment on any other editor or their motives. Thank you. Steven Zhang 16:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@39.47, And Steve, I will reply your message after sometime. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Steven Zhang, in short I will say that, like when content dispute was going on Kashmir conflict page then we seek for your opinion as you are non-involved neutral party, credible and your opinion does matters or your opinion can be taken as seriously. Same way in real India-Pakistan Kashmir conflict, opinion of non-involved, neutral and credible party like European Union does matters. If you see sequence in current lead for 2008 Jammu and Kashmir elections UN opinion is given, in same sequence for 2014 elections EU opinion is given. We can change wording of EU statement to make it small but article deserves mention of it. And you are talking about press release, so what's wrong with press release? Every decision of any government is released by press release. And what "one member" you are talking about? its press release by European Parliament. We can't take European Parliament as lightly as Mufti Sayeed's personal opinion to reject it. --Human3015 knock knock • 17:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The reference at the end states the source is "The Office of MEP Kosma Zlotowski", leading me to believe it might be their opinion solely. I also did a google search and found this, where it states "European Parliament's positions are established by a vote in plenary session , the plenary has neither debated nor adopted a position on State Legislative Elections in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir." While I wouldn't say that we can use an email sent to a reporter as a reliable source, it backs up my thinking that the EU reference is by one MEP and not the EU as a whole, and like the opinion of Sayeed, does not merit inclusion. Steven Zhang 00:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

   * Hurriyat and Pak allowed conducive-atmosphere for polls JK CM Mufti Sayeed quoted by India leading newspaper Times of india. Please see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hurriyat-Pak-allowed-conducive-atmosphere-for-polls-JK-CM-Mufti-Sayeed-says/articleshow/46418871.cms

   * Mufti Sayeed credits Pakistan for peaceful polls quoted by Pakistani leading newspaper Dawn. Please see http://www.dawn.com/news/1166786

   * I stand by my statement on Pakistan and hurriyat JK CM Mufti Mohammad Sayeed quoted by India leading newspaper indianexpress. Please see http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/i-stand-by-my-statement-on-pakistan-and-hurriyat-jk-cm-mufti-mohammad-sayeed/

• Above one person said that we should delete mention of highest voting in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 and instead we should add voter turnout of Lok Sabha election. I want to say that, if we see sequence in the lead, firstly it talks about 2008 Assembly elections and voter turnout in 2008 assembly election, in that sequence we are writing voter turnout in 2014 assembly election. Moreover, we have to give Latest update, Lok sabha elections were held in May 2014, while assembly elections were held in December 2014, so assembly elections reflects more recent picture of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, there is nothing like which election is relevant, assembly election also very important elections and all national leaders including Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi were involved in these elections. . --Human3015 knock knock • 07:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang Low participation by kashmiris in Indian National (Lok sabha) election which is important because state election are just about self governance so irrelevant to kashmir international standing/cause but national elections are about affirmation to india as country with which kashmiri want to live or not. Read this Indian leading newspaper reference it says Jammu and kashmir was having lowest turnover as compare to all other 36 indian states (even union territories) in National (lok sabha) election 2014. Despite double expenditure on election as compare to election 2009. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms In step 3 of resolution, We are only discussing inclusion of National (Lok sabha) assembly elections 2014's turnover in the lead. Once we finalize step 3 then we will move to step 4 for state elections 2014 discussion. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep this on topic. This dispute is not about the national election, and I will not let this thread become a "all things wrong with X article". It is about whether or not the disputed section discussed in the dispute overview should be included in the article. I've given my feedback on this and I would recommend this be considered and implemented. Thank you. Steven Zhang 00:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang refer to your comment above dated 30 June 2015 @ 16:30. You said i have commented on two proposed paras by both parties to the dispute. If you see IPs proposed para you will know that it included line about National (lok sabha) election (with leading Indian news paper reference). So if I am discussing National election low participation then off course i am not away from disputed topic (two paras).115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And I suggested content for the article, which I felt merited inclusion based on the provided references. I feel it (the proposed lede which included mention of the national election) was poorly worded and am not sure it is suitable for inclusion - a lede is a summary of the article contents, and none of the national elections are mentioned from what I can see, only state elections. I don't see what it adds that is missing from the article. That said, I'd rather not endlessly debate over the content of the article here - I've given my suggestions and input on this topic which is all I can do. This DRN thread started as a question of whether the EU statement or the one from Sayeed should be included, and I explained why they shouldn't be, and purely stating the results of the most recent election is suitable. We don't make binding decisions at DRN, but I've said all I have to say on this matter. Steven Zhang 09:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang after your comments of 13:53, 30 June 2015, you requested comments from all the parties involved. Four out Four accepted deletion of EU statement and inclusion of mufti statement so no further decision on that is required but as far as national or state election inclusion is concerned both IPS used the permission granted by you and gave this solid reasoning. 1. This article is about kashmir conflict (Not indian held Jammu and kashmir state). 2. In this article never covered state elections of Kashmir held by Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) or kashmir held by China (Aksai chin and Karakorm tract) then why Indian state elections only ? 3. State elections are about self governance of state hence not relevant to conflict 3. Crux of this conflict is India says kashmiri people participate in Indian national election hence they are with india while Pakistan/ Separatists rejects election as an alternative to United states granted right of self determination to kashmiris. 5. Keeping in mind all 4 points, it is more than logical to add this in the lead In lok sabha (National) election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. With this reference which is in it self from India and from leading news paper TIMES OF INDIA 115.186.146.225 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

- Sorry, but I never said the statement from Sayeed should be included, I think you might be seeing what you want to see - refer to my comment of "Likewise, the reference given from Mufti Sayeed should not be included in the article per undue weight." Steven Zhang 08:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I never said that your views were in favor of mufti statement. If you read my last statement again I said "After your comments of 13:53, 30 June 2015, you requested comments from all the parties involved. In those comments Four out Four parties to dispute accepted deletion of EU statement and inclusion of mufti statement so no further resolution from you on those two points is now requested". Thanks to your efforts for this progress but now we have to focus on national election vs state election issue because we have already spent one month in this dispute resolution process. For solving these last two points I repeat my questions 1. This article is about kashmir conflict (Not indian held Jammu and kashmir state). 2. In this article never covered state elections of Kashmir held by Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) or kashmir held by China (Aksai chin and Karakorm tract) then why Indian state elections only ? 3. State elections are about self governance of state hence not relevant to conflict 3. Crux of this conflict is India says kashmiri people participate in Indian national election hence they are with india while Pakistan/ Separatists rejects election as an alternative to United states granted right of self determination to kashmiris. 5. Keeping in mind all 4 points, it is more than logical to add this in the lead In lok sabha (National) election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. With this reference which is in it self from India and from leading news paper TIMES OF INDIA 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will ask the participants to state here that they agree with what you are saying that they agreed the statement by Sayeed should be included. @Kautilya3:@Human3015:@CosmicEmperor:@Faizan:, as my reading of their comments does not support this. I will not be addressing the other points you made - it is irrelevant to the reason this dispute was brought to DRN and will collapse anymore discussion about the matter. Steven Zhang 08:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I am afraid you have not read last few comments since 30 June 2015, rather then wasting ten further day on this single issue out of four issues. Let me tell you 1. Cosmic emperor already blocked for sock puppetry. 2. Faizan by himself add mufti statement see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666051057&oldid=666015528 3. Me saying it through out 4. IP 39 saying it through out 5. Kautilya3 agreed for inclusion see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=669452451&oldid=669452142 6. Human3015 has already included even an ex chief minister's statement in the lead on 14 June 2014 (right after current CM mufti statement sentence) so by doing so human3015 by default gave his acceptance to both CMs statements. See this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666895617&oldid=666622144 115.186.146.225 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Steven Zhang on the talk page of this DRN Robert McClenon rightly pointed out about your lack of attention to detailed discussions. Moderator first and foremost task is not to enforce decisions (as you by yourself admitted earlier) but to bring all parties at some convergence but you re opening solved issues of EU deletion and Syed statement. Are you a moderator or dispute re opener with weekly wake ups? 115.186.146.225 is a hard worker and he collected great details from article history, Talk page history, Talk page discussions, DRN discussions etc. steve u must have appreciated his efforts for making your moderation job easy but i can not see you bother to answer even one of his valid questions. If we will ignore right of valid argumentation on DRN then God help us. Disappointed 39.47.74.185 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not misrepresent my statements. I did not say that the moderator and coordinator was not paying attention to detailed discussions, except for a period that he was absent due to a death in the family. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I had placed a comment that was meant for the moderator's talk page, but it was saying that he had read the posts, not that he hadn't. I have reverted the misplaced post. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Interstate matches in Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aspirex (talk · contribs)
• SportsEditor518 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a content dispute concerning the article subsection Interstate matches in Australian rules football#Importance. The difficulty is in balancing an encyclopedic description of the historical important/popularity of interstate football – and most specifically, its importance within the state of Victoria. The two editors involved have substantially different interpretations of the history. I have been attempting to describe the fact that interstate football was, in general, less popular in Victoria than it was in other states; and I have been trying to push to quantify its popularity in Victoria by comparing it with crowds at club matches.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Began with a brief edit summary war, then discussion on user talk pages. Early discussion was hindered by a lack of references. See User_talk:Aspirex#Interstate_matches_in_Australian_rules_football, and User_talk:2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (SportsEditor518 went under that IP in early discussion). Following Aspirex obtaining references, the issue has been re-discussed on SportsEditor518's user talk page with no further progress.

How do you think we can help?

A third eye would be helpful to make unbiased judgements on what can and cannot be concluded from the references in question. A communication intermediary would also be helpful, as neither side seems to be able to fully appreciate the other's position.

Summary of dispute by SportsEditor518

Hi. I'd like to start by clarifying my position. The sentence in question, that I wrote is accurate. Which is But Interstate Football was still hugely popular in Victoria, which is sourced, and well supported by other references. Now certainly Interstate Football was not always popular in Victoria, the same as the other states, they had periods of highs and lows. But definitely at times it was very popular. Which I can prove, which is as follows, the 1989 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 91,960, and 10,000 people got turned away at the gate, reference . The 1971 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 66,000, reference . The 1963 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 59,260, reference . The 2008 intestate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 69,000, reference . The 1995 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 64,000, reference . The 1978 interstate game in Victoria got a big crowd of 45,192, that information is on the Misplaced Pages page (Interstate matches in Australian rules football). The two interstate games in Victoria in 1975 got big crowds of 40,006, that information is on the Misplaced Pages page 1975 Knockout Carnival. All of those games in Victoria got big crowds, which would mean during those times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria. Also my reference for line in question, from a former professional Australian rules footballer Ray Walker who lived and played in Victoria, and was involved in Victorian Football for many years, states With the VFL still a few years from morphing into the national competition it is today interstate clashes between Victoria, South Australia & Western Australia were amongst the most anticipated clashes during the first half of the "electrifying" eighties. And to add to that it is common knowledge that Australian Football in Victoria is hugely popular, and has been described as an obsession, reference . That would mean Interstate Football was hugely popular in Victoria at that time, because in a State where the sport is hugely popular, interstate games being amongst the most anticipated in an environment where the sport is hugely popular, means Interstate Football during that period was hugely popular in Victoria. Also another reference that proves my case is Ted Whitten a former professional Australian rules footballer who lived and played in Victoria for many years, and who played Interstate Football for Victoria for many years, and was involved in the Victorian State team for many years, is quoted as saying players would walk on glass to wear the Victorian jumper, that is how desperate players are to play, reference . All of these references prove that at times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria.

Editor Aspirex position that he is trying to prove how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria by comparing it to crowds at club matches is irrelevant. The subject is Interstate Football was popular in Victoria, not how popular it was in comparison to club Football. So therefore that argument is irrelevant.

I am still hoping that this can be solved by a compromise. I have recently left a compromise proposition on editor Aspirex's talk page. I have yet to have a response, but I only posted it recently. The proposal is get rid of the line in question, and add (Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent. There were times it was very popular, but though out it's history in the State there were periods of low popularity. The periods of popularity usually coincided with close contests or losses with other states, and after periods of interstate games not being played in the State). I think this would be the best way to describe the content.

So in summarising at times Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria. I have several references that prove this. Therefore my statement in question and my proposal are accurate.SportsEditor518 (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

• Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case. In looking at the discussion, which has all taken place on various user talk pages with no one regularly using signatures, it looks like there's possibly a third user involved? the possible third user was actually an IP of one of the two named users. valereee (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – 2001:8003...etc was the former IP of SportsEditor518. Unfortunately, much of the early discussion took place with each of us replying to the other's talk page, affecting the trackability of the discussion – but all comments have been signed. Later discussion has all take place on SportsEditor518's page. Aspirex (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Offer I'm willing to compile all of the discussions into one place if desired. Aspirex (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note Thanks for the offer, Aspirex! Let's wait until SportsEditor518 shows up. I noticed that the request for his input was inside another section on his talk page, so I just reposted it in its own section. He has edited today, so maybe he just didn't realize it was there. valereee (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have compiled everything at SportsEditor518's talk page. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Thank you, SportsEditor518 and Aspirex for both being open to the dispute resolution process; that alone tells me good things about both of you.  :) I see that Aspirex has compiled the information onto SportsEditor518's talk page; I'll read it over. I have an appointment this morning and likely won't be able to respond for several hours. valereee (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion as posted on SportsEditor518's talk page. From what I can see, you've both been sincerely trying to work together, talking about compromise, staying civil even when you thought the other was being unreasonable. Yay, team! For a next step I'd like to check that my understanding of your disagreement is accurate.

SportsEditor518, you seem to be saying:

• that interstate football was hugely or very popular in VIC
• that it was not less popular there than in the rest of AU
• that low points in interstate football popularity occurred across AU, not just in VIC

And you've cited sources for this in game crowd statistics from reliable sources for various interstate games/times throughout history in VIC/AU.

Plus, you aren't sure you trust the interpretation Aspirex is putting on sources that aren't online where you can assess them for yourself.

Aspirex, you seem to be saying:

• that in VIC, interstate football has at times been less popular than intrastate club football
• that "hugely popular" and "very popular" are qualitative terms and therefore opinion, so aren't appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages without a reliable source stating those opinions
• that using game crowd statistics to support qualitative assertions represents synthesis and/or original research, which can't be used as reliable third-party sources in Misplaced Pages articles

And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU, and that the area of disagreement lies in the relative popularity of interstate football.

I'll ask you both to comment on whether my understanding of both your areas of disagreement and your areas of agreement is accurate. valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Aspirex

On those points:

• "that in VIC, interstate football has at times been less popular than intrastate club football" (technical change, as 'intrastate' has a separate definition which is specifically relevant to Tasmania). That's not right. The main point I'm trying to get across is that interstate football in Victoria has throughout history been less popular than interstate football in other states. I see this fact as having an important part to play in the history and culture of interstate football – it goes most of the way to explaining why interstate football was more substantially centred in Adelaide and Perth after the 1960s, and it probably has a big part to play in explaining the ultimate demise of interstate football, which is why I'm so intent on its inclusion and description in full. I've been using a comparison between interstate football and club football because I think that's the most sensible way to "normalise" the concept of popularity between the states – but the take-home message I'm trying to promote by doing that is a comparison between interstate football in Victoria and elsewhere, not a comparison between interstate football and club football.
• "that "hugely popular" and "very popular" are qualitative terms and therefore opinion, so aren't appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages without a reliable source stating those opinions" More or less correct. The issue is probably more that the terms are ambiguous than that they are opinionated.
• "that using game crowd statistics to support qualitative assertions represents synthesis and/or original research, which can't be used as reliable third-party sources in Misplaced Pages articles" Yes, I think this is a textbook exapmle of why we don't allow WP:SYNTHESIS. As you've seen from the history, the two of us are looking at the same crowd numbers and drawing opposite conclusions. (I recognise the descriptions of interstate football's popularity in SA, WA and Tasmania as they stand in the article are also SYNTHed, but neither of us seem to be disputing those conclusions)
• "And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU..." – we haven't discussed this explicitly, but I'm not certain we agree on this one. I've been treating the base-line popularity of club football as constant across all four states, which is why I've been freely comparing club and interstate football with each other. SportsEditor518 has said on a couple of occasions "Football is like a religion in Victoria", and I wonder if that's intended to mean that club football should be assumed to be more popular in Victoria than elsewhere.

One thing I do agree to: the comment/reference about Ted Whitten refers to the the importance of interstate football to the players, rather than its importance to fans – all of our discussion to date has been focussed on importance to fans. I think it would be worthwhile to include a separate paragraph in the same section of the article describing importance to players; I think that would be a useful addition and should be easily referencable. Any news article which quotes Graham Cornes will be able to provide an equally valid South Australian perspective on the matter. (Note, however – Whitten was the most vigorous promotor of interstate football in Victoria, and he would tend to exaggerate to generate public interest. But I've seen enough references of players talking about their pride to play for Victoria that I wouldn't dispute his sentiment) Aspirex (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by SportsEditor518

First I'll address the moderators requested points.

• That interstate football was hugely or very popular in VIC - yes Interstate Football was very popular in Victoria.
• That it was not less popular there than in the rest of AU - I'd like to clarify something, I'm not disputing that Interstate Football was more popular outside Victoria. It was a little bit more popular outside Victoria.
• That low points in interstate football popularity occurred across AU, not just in VIC - yes I agree with that, and is accurate.
• Plus, you aren't sure you trust the interpretation Aspirex is putting on sources that aren't online where you can assess them for yourself - yes that's correct, and I'm not sure if they even exist.
• And if I'm understanding it correctly, you both seem to agree that football in general has been at least as popular in VIC as in the rest of AU, and that the area of disagreement lies in the relative popularity of interstate football - no for both. The first point, Football is way more popular in Victoria than in the rest of Australia, it's the heartland of the sport in Australia, references . And I'm not debating the point the relative popularity of interstate football. I'm saying that Interstate Football was at times very popular in Victoria, not relative to anything else.

I'll now address Aspirex's points.

• Aspirex claim that interstate football was more substantially centred in Adelaide and Perth after the 1960s is not true. Between 1981 and 1988 there were no interstate games played in Victoria. But for the rest of time from the 1960's onwards until the concept was abolished many interstate games were played in Victoria. So that statement is incorrect.
• Aspirex's point I've been using a comparison between interstate football and club football because I think that's the most sensible way to "normalise" the concept of popularity between the states is irrelevant. Because like I explained the subject is was Interstate Football popular in Victoria at all, and a comparison between Interstate Football and Club Football is not needed and is irrelevant to describe weather the concept was popular in Victoria at all, therefore it's irrelevant.
• Aspirex's point I'm trying to promote by doing that is a comparison between interstate football in Victoria and elsewhere is also irrelevant. Because in no way does that comparison describe weather Interstate Football was popular in Victoria at all.
• Aspirex's claim that some of my sources are Synthesis is wrong. I have two references which is related to the topic of the article, one states a crowd I said was big is big, and the other that a crowd and crowds below and around the crowds in my references are big, references
• Aspirex's claim that some of my sources are ambiguous is wrong. The references are very clear, and I proved that in my last point with the references.
• Aspirex's position that club Football is just as popular everywhere in Australia, is not true. Club Football is way more popular in Victoria than in the other states. Reference 1 from Graham Cornes who is a South Australian, who was born in Victoria, and played for and in South Australia for many years, and coached South Australia and in South Australia for many years - . 2 from the AFL - . The reason I bring this up is because it lends a lot of weight to my point that Interstate Football was at times very popular in Victoria, reference . Because interstate games being amongst the most anticipated during period in the reference, reference , in an environment where Football is hugely popular, which I've given several references for, means interstate Football was very popular during that time.
• Aspirex's statement that Ted Whitten used to exaggerate interest in Interstate Football is wrong, and there is no evidence of that.

So in summarising all of my references are valid, and therefore my statement and proposal are accurate. I think my proposal should be added to the article because it's the best way to describe the content.SportsEditor518 (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

1½th statement by Aspirex

I should let Valereee speak next, but I feel I need to make two important rebuttals before my next full statement:

• SportsEditor518's assertion that club football is "way more popular in Victoria" than elsewhere is false. His view seems to be solely to be based the use of the word "heartland", which is more of a buzzword than an objective measure of popularity. This reference from the Australian Bureau of Statistics has tables that show the Attendance Rate and Participation Rate in Austrlian rules football on a state-by-state basis, and shows that both attendances and participation (on a percentage-of-population basis) are very similar across Vic, SA, Tas and WA.
• I'm also offended that SportsEditor518 is assuming bad faith on my part, with regard to what is clearly an accusation that I've fabricated my non-online references. I regularly use newspaper sources that aren't available online when writing articles about football history (1987 VFA season is a good example, containing about 50 print references), and I do this because I've found in sport that contemporary sources tend to be a much more accurate reflection of reality than modern references. Aspirex (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

2½ statement by SportsEditor518

I should let Valereee speak next, but I feel I need to rebut three important things before my next statement.

• Aspirex claim that Football is just as popular everywhere in Australia as it is in Victoria is clearly wrong. I have provided several references that are valid that prove this. Here's a reference that gives you an idea of how Football is way more popular in Victoria compared to anywhere else. It's from Jason Dunstall a former professional Australian Footballer, who was born in a State outside Victoria, and moved to Victoria to play professionally, and the person who is interviewing him in my reference. The dialogue goes as follows Interviewer - it must of been a massive culture shock coming from Queensland to the (mad house of Melbourne with it's Football). Melbourne is the capital of Victoria. Jason Dunstall responds - massive culture shock, absolutely massive culture shock, I was like a Deer in the head lights when I came down. He then goes on to say the importance of Footy culture plays in people's lives in Victoria was extraordinary, I mean people's working week depends on how their team goes on the Weekend. He then goes on to say I'd never experienced anything as intense as that, so that took a lot to adapt too. Here's that reference . Football in States outside Victoria doesn't get described like that. An important thing to note is it's not just statistics that makes Football in Victoria way more popular than anywhere else. It's what it means to people, it's how much it's talked about, and other such things. Here's another reference which proves Football is hugely popular in Victoria, it's described in the article as an obsession.

• Aspires's claim that all of my references for Football being way more popular in Victoria than anywhere else are based on the use of the word Heartland is wrong. One of my references that doesn't use the word Heartland is from Graham Cornes, who lived, played and coached in South Australia for many years, who is a very passionate South Australian, which is well documented, and which is described in my reference. And who is someone who hated Victoria! which is well documented. And he describes in my reference that Football is way more popular in Victoria than anywhere else, here's that reference . Football in other states doesn't get described as profoundly as it is in that reference.

• Aspirex's claim that the word Heartland is a Buzz word, and doesn't objectively describe a sports popularity is wrong. The word is accurately used by sports to describe where their sport is most popular, like Australian Football has done with Victoria.SportsEditor518 (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator

So sorry, somehow the DRN got unwatched, and I was just coming in here to make a note to ping SportsEditor518 for his first statement. My bad. So it looks like I haven't done a very good job summarizing the actual dispute...let's try again. I'd like, if possible, to get this down to the absolute minimum of the actual dispute -- the primary issue, I mean -- to see if we can work on that.

Let me go read over your statements 1, 1 1/2, 2 1/2 etc., BRB. Okay, read through, and thanks for all the work the two of you have been putting into this.

So let me try again to get at the very heart of the dispute and state it as simply as possible.

Is it true that the main issue here is that the two of you disagree on whether interstate football was very popular in VIC, and that you both believe you've got references that prove your own side of the argument?

valereee (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

3rd statement by SportsEditor518

Spot on Valereee, yes that is the dispute. And editor Aspirex seems to be debating that Interstate Football was more popular in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, which I don't dispute.SportsEditor518 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Aspirex

Yes, that's right.

But to be honest, I'm now struggling even more to fully understand SportsEditor518's position. He says in his third statement that he agrees with me that interstate football was less popular in Victoria than elsewhere; but he's rejected every attempt I've made to include that information in the article and described almost every reference and argument I've used to push that case as irrelevant. So I'm confused about exactly what problems SportsEditor581 has with my proposed text. Aspirex (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re: whether interstate football was very popular/hugely popular in VIC

Okay, so we've go agreement that this is the crux of the dispute -- great! Let's stay within this section (rather than starting each statement with a new section -- just indent responses to each previous response by one additional colon at the start of your response as is normal on a talk page and when you're starting a new line of thought, leave out the indents.) Let's focus on just this one statement.

SportsEditor518, Aspirex is saying that the two of you are in agreement that interstate football was less popular in VIC than it was in the rest of WA, SA, TAS. Is it your argument that while it was less popular in VIC than in the rest of AU, it was still 'very popular'? Let's try to keep to just this one point. valereee (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's partially correct. My position is that Interstate Football was more popular in SA, WA and TAS than in Victoria. But at times it was very popular in Victoria.

I think the best way to address the issue is as follows - regarding Aspirex's proposal my problems are it doesn't describe how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria. Which was like I stated it was very popular at times, and it had it's highs and lows. Which I've certainly proved, with many references. The other problem I have with his proposal is that my proposal better describes the content.

Also I am very confused why Aspirex has the view that he's confused about what the debate is about, and what my problems are with he's proposal. For one I've stated several times what I'm debating, and what my problems are with he's proposal. Asirex's claims that I've rejected his attempt to include the information that Interstate Football was more popular in WA, SA & Tas than in Victoria, and I dismissed his references and arguments as irrelevant for it, are not true. The reason I bring this up is because the information he wants in the article that Interstate Football was more popular in SA, WA & Tas than in Victoria is already in there. So I'm very confused.

I think my proposal should be added to the article, which is get rid of the line in question, and add the line - Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent. There were times it was very popular, but though out it's history in the State there were periods of low popularity. The periods of popularity usually coincided with close contests or losses with other states, and after periods of interstate games not being played in the State. I think my proposal should be added because it best describes the content, and it describes how popular Interstate Football was in Victoria, and the reasons for it.SportsEditor518 (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, we seem to have an area of agreement. Let's keep to just that one area of agreement for now. What I'd like to propose is that we now check, for just the point that "While less popular than in other states, Interstate football was still "very popular" in VIC," that we have reliable sources. A reliable source has to have said something very very close to just that. Do you have a reliable source saying something similar to that, SportsEditor518? I looked at some of the sources you have cited so far, and some of them seem to be simple game crowd numbers which can't prove a concept like "popularity" one way or the other, others aren't reliable by wikipedia standards, and at least I couldn't myself get to because they require a subscription. Which isn't to say they aren't reliable or wouldn't prove the point, just that I couldn't check them for myself. But they may be available to Aspirex. valereee (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Valereee, I have to clarify my position after an oversight on my part, my position is that I agree that Interstate Football was more popular in WA, SA & Tas than in Victoria. But at times it was very popular in Victoria.

Yes I do have reliable sources. One is the reference I have in the article, which is from Ray Walker who played professional Football in Victoria, and was involved in the professional league in Victoria for many years, and lived in Victoria. And he says this - With the VFL still a few years from morphing into the national competition it is today interstate clashes between Victoria, South Australia & Western Australia were amongst the most anticipated clashes during the first half of the "electrifying" eighties. Here's that reference . Another reference I have is a crowd number in a sentence, but it says this - Incredibly, 91,960 fans responded to Ted Whitten’s call to support the concept’s return to the MCG, here's that reference . Also I've got another reference about the same game where it says 10,000 people got turned away at the gate at the ground, here's that reference . And I have a reference which is related to the topic of the article, which states a crowd I referred to in one of my references is big, and a crowd smaller than crowds I described in my references are big. That comes under SYNTHESIS, under what is stated on it's page, which is - A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Therefore all of my crowd references are valid under SYNTHESIS. Here's that reference SportsEditor518 (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, so let's do two things -- first, let's assess the sources, then let's assess the conclusions we're drawing from those sources. I'll give you my take first, and then you tell me what you think.

The first source is australianfootball.com, which from their about page appears to be a blog about the history of AU football. I'm not an expert on Australian media, but in general what Misplaced Pages wants to see is a large newspaper, a published book, or an online source that is recognized by large newspapers as reliable, like Huffington Post or a few others. To me, this wouldn't look like a reliable source if it came up in my research for an article.

The second is the Herald Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper in Melbourne -- so yes, that's a reliable source. The third is again the Herald Sun, so yes, reliable. I can't reach the Courier-Mail because it requires a subscription, but it's one of the largest newspapers in AU, so again, a reliable source.

So this leaves us with the two Herald Sun articles and the Courier-Mail article, and now we need to assess what they say about popularity of football in VIC.

The two Herald Sun articles are both 'greatest moments in football history' stories, both covering much of the same ground. I see only passing references to crowd size, nothing that seems to come close to saying 'interstate football is very popular in VIC.' Other than a passing reference to crowd size and numbers turned away, I don't see anything? We can't take a statement from one and connect it to a statement from the other to form a conclusion that seems obvious to us. In general it has to be a conclusion someone else came to and which was reported in our single reliable source. The exception would be if reliable source A were to make a blanket statement that "Any game attended by more than 90,000 people inherently proves that the sport in question is very popular in a particular place," and reliable source B says, "Game C was attended by 90,001." We could then say something like "According to Reliable Source A, Game C's attendance figures (citation of Reliable Source B goes here) prove that interstate football was very popular in VIC."(citation of Reliable Source A.)

Which leaves the final reference to assess. As I can't see it, I can't comment, but it needs to say something very similar to 'interstate football is/was/has been/has often been very popular in VIC,' or make that blanket statement I was talking about above. Is there something in that article that says one of these things? valereee (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

My perspective on those references is as follows:

The Mick Rees/Ray Walker article, whether from a reliable source or not, simply doesn't allow SportsEditor518's conclusion about interstate football in Victoria to be drawn. It is talking about interstate football in a very general sense, and does not mention Victoria specifically when describing how "anticipated" the games were. SportsEditor518's argument has been that the generality of the article (and home state of the author) means that the conclusions drawn from it are equally valid for Victoria as they are for any other state. I don't accept that at all – especially not when we've already established and agreed that popularities were different across the different states. My other argument is that the article is referring specifically to the first half of the 1980s; we've already established and agreed that no interstate games were played in Victoria between 1981 and 1988, and therefore one can easily conclude that any generalised conclusions about interstate football as a whole in that period cannot be extended to Victoria.

Secondly, the references relating to the maximum crowd of 91,960 from 1989. Neither of us is disputing that this crowd occurred, and my proposed text does include a description of it. However, the Greg Baum reference I provided on SportsEditor518's talk page clearly describes the special circumstances which drove that particular crowd to be so high: namely, that SA's dominance over the previous three years had sparked interest and that promotion for that game by the VFL was unusually high. My proposal details this with Baum's article as the reference. I do agree that this one maximum crowd is worthy of note, but I do not consider it reflective of interstate football's overall popularity in Victoria – particularly since the next-highest crowd in interstate football history was only 69,000 (in a stadium which can accommodate 90,000-100,000). So in summary: valid reference for describing the peak crowd, but invalid reference for describing interstate football as "very popular".

The final reference (the one you can't see) is an article which details crowds at club matches in the first half of 2015. It is completely irrelevant. SportsEditor518 is using it to draw conclusions about crowds at interstate matches from between thirty and fifty years earlier. It's both an invalid comparison and a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS.

My proposed version of the text as it stands says "Other than the record-breaking match in 1989, the largest crowds drawn to interstate games in Victoria were between 60,000-70,000, on par a large home-and-away game but lower than a typical finals attendance; and average crowds were often around 40,000." To me, that is a fair and accurate description of interstate football's absolute popularity in Victoria, because it describes the crowds in the context of overall football popularity (i.e. by using club crowds as the baseline measure of football's popularity in Victoria). Even if I agreed with the sentiment, I find the thought of adding a term like "very popular" to try to summarise the thought to be problematic because it's such a subjective term – but the way I read it, it's a substantial overstatement of its popularity. I don't see any problem with just stating the numbers and letting them speak for themselves. Aspirex (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Aspirex! I think that if there were a reliable source from which a direct quote can be taken, terms like 'very popular' are fair game for a wikipedia article. I agree it's subjective, but we report it objectively: "Other than the record-breaking match in 1989, the largest crowds drawn to interstate games in Victoria were between 60,000-70,000, on par a large home-and-away game but lower than a typical finals attendance; and average crowds were often around 40,000. However, HeraldSunSportsWriter, writing in the Herald Sun, said 'the attendance figures understate the popularity of interstate football in Victoria.'(citation)" The key issue is finding the support for that subjective statement in a reliable source, which we can then report on objectively. valereee (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible way to phrase it – I've been struggling with coming up with a way to phrase it that doesn't sound contradictory. I'd want somthing a little more credible than a reference that just uses the words "very popular" though – in my mind it would have to be an article that was talking about its popularity as the main point of the article, rather than one of those 'top ten' type articles which included "very popular" as a throwaway line. Aspirex (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Short break I'm headed out of town overnight, may or may not have internet access. I'll be back either Saturday night or Sunday morning. valereee (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Back now! Hm, doesn't look like SportsEditor518 has edited since the 24th, so we'll give him a little longer in case he's in a busy stretch of real life. valereee (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see SportsEditor518 edited yesterday, so pinging him here. valereee (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for SportsEditor518 to edit again without showing up here to respond to the ping before we decide he's lost interest in the discussion. valereee (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he edited as an IP yesterday, pinging him there, too in case he's simply forgotten to sign in and hasn't received the ping 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F

Aspirex, I'm wondering if SportsEditor518 has simply lost interest. In your discussions with him, was he ever absent this long? If he was, we can give him a little more time now that we've pinged him on both his user name and his IP. valereee (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No, he had basically always responded within a day in the past. Aspirex (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm...well, at this point it's been over a week since he's been in here. I'm headed out of town for three days, will have intermittent internet access. If he hasn't come back in by the time I'm back, I guess we'll have to conclude that for now he's no longer disputing the issue. valereee (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism in Sri Lanka

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• LahiruG (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Terrorism in Sri Lanka was created by User:LahiruG recently but he has only included some aspects of terrorism in Sri Lanka. I have tried four times to add missing aspects from the subject - state terrorism - but on each occasion LahiruG has removed the addition: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first three times my addition were reduced to single sentence. On the fourth time my addition has been completely removed.

We have tried to discuss the dispute on the talk page.

LahiruG claims that having anything more than one sentence on state terrorism is a violation of WP:NPOV as there is a separate article on the subject.

I believe the opposite is true. LahiruG has included in this article a lot of content which are covered in other articles - Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, 1987–89 JVP Insurrection, Prevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka) but he wishes to suppress content from Sri Lanka and state terrorism. This is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on the talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree.

How do you think we can help?

Help us decide whether it is a violation of WP:NPOV to include anything more than one sentence on Sri Lanka and state terrorism in this article

Summary of dispute by LahiruG

The article Terrorism in Sri Lanka was created by me to describe the topic non-state terrorism in Sri Lanka, a highly notable topic which was missing in Misplaced Pages for many years. By creating this page I have intended to describe about the subject, its history, its root causes, disastrous incidents and the hardships people went through due to it, rather than elaborating on state terrorism which is already covered in a separate page which was created in 2006. After I have created this page, User:Obi2canibe started to elaborate on 'State Terrorism and Sri Lanka' in this page with giving a undue weight to it. At one stage this page too looked like a stub on state terrorism, due to POV editing of him (example). I understood the intentions of User:Obi2canibe and moved the content to the talk page and started a discussion on whether it is required to elaborate on state terrorism in this page too, a subject which is already covered in State terrorism and Sri Lanka.

I don't think it is necessary to elaborate on 'state terrorism' in 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' or vice versa, as it will cause many disputes in future too, among the editors who will be involved in editing these pages. If it is necessary to elaborate on state terrorism in this page, then I believe a section on 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' should be added to the page 'State terrorism and Sri Lanka' which is also related to state terrorism of Sri Lanka. If it is decided to do so, then I believe that it should be done by a neutral editor to avoid a potential violation of NPOV and to avoid these pages becoming a battle ground.

Terrorism in Sri Lanka discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has not been extensive. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but I would suggest that there should be further civil discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Hello @Obi2canibe:, and @LahiruG:, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. My apologies for the delay in this case being addressed. That said, this is pretty clear cut to me, and not necessarily from an NPOV view but a content accessibility view. It's very common on Misplaced Pages for a broader or overview topic (such as this one) to link to other topics and provide a brief summary of related topics and link to them, such as how this article does. Readers might want to read about related topics. so linking to them and providing a brief overview is appropriate. The content of each of these articles and whether they are balanced, neutral and reliably sourced articles is a different matter altogether, but on the question of inclusion, I think it's only reasonable. Steven Zhang 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. An uninvolved editor, Blackknight12, has inserted a paragraph on state terrorism in what he believes is a neutral tone. I am happy with it. I hope LahiruG can accept this and your comments above.--obi2canibe 07:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for joining the discussion Steven. Though I oppose the move of to add a section on state terrorism in the page 'Terrorism in Sri Lanka' without having a consensus here or at the talk page, I have not removed it or tried to do the opposite. Anyway, I am very surprised with it, and I have big question on why the so called uninvolved editor , has not added a separate section on similarly related 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' in 'Sri Lanka and State terrorism' page or at-least about the major insurrections/ war that have happened in Sri Lanka within the last 4-5 decades. WP:NPOV states that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias", but I am afraid it is not the case with 'Sri Lanka and State terrorism' because it clearly takes a side, while only this page has to explain everything.--LahiruG 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's quite common for articles to branch out and not directly link to each other in the same fashion - for example, the article on Weather has a brief section on Weather forecasting, with a link to the main article. However, Weather forecasting does not have a similar formatted link to the Weather article - it is a sub-topic of the parent article. In this case, Sri Lanka and state terrorism is a sub-topic of Terrorism in Sri Lanka, so while there should be a wikilink back to the Terrorism in Sri Lanka article, having a summary and a link back to the Terrorism in Sri Lanka is unsuitable - the purpose of this feature is to provide a brief overview of a sub-topic (State terrorism is a sub topic of overall terrorism) and is not about neutrality (the content of both of these articles definitely needs work, but that is not the issue brought here to DRN.). Steven Zhang 07:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the other stuff exists scenario you have given is quite different to the situation we have in this case. Having a small section on state terrorism in this page is not a big issue, but the problem is that there is a big possibility of that brief section on state terrorism will go out of proportion due to POV editing of some users in the future and will be given an undue weight. I have given an example already how this page too looked like a stub on state terrorism at one stage, due to bias editing of User:Obi2canibe. So what is the solution you suggest to prevent this? The state terrorism in Sri Lanka is related to the war, insurrections and the groups involved in those issues. I believe a brief introduction on those aspects should also be given in the that page too, to balance the coverage.--LahiruG 09:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@LahiruG: there is no policy basis for excluding content from an article simply because of what might happen in the future. Besides, the state terrorism section on Terrorism in Sri Lanka accounts for less than 5% of the article. How does that make it a stub on state terrorism?

Earlier you wanted to exclude state terrorism from Terrorism in Sri Lanka but now that you have not found any policy to support your argument you want to expand Sri Lanka and state terrorism to include other terrorism. What policy basis is this based on? WP:NPOV requires an article to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The topic covered by Terrorism in Sri Lanka is terrorism in Sri Lanka and so it should include all terrorism in Sri Lanka, irrespective of who carried out that terrorism. The topic covered by Sri Lanka and state terrorism is state terrorism in Sri Lanka and so it should only include state terrorism.

You have dismissed @Steven Zhang's example as WP:OSE but it clearly exemplifies how the Misplaced Pages community expects WP:NPOV to be interpreted. Take another example, Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992, which has been spun off from United States presidential election, 1992. The latter has content on the campaigns of all the candidates in the election but the former only details Ross Perot's campaign. Based on LahiruG's argument, this is a violation of WP:NPOV, it should contain content on the campaigns of all the candidates. How was Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 able achieve Featured Article status if it violated one of the core content policies?--obi2canibe 14:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: I was expecting a reply from the mediator, anyway What I have said is that at one stage the page on Terrorism in Sri Lanka too looked like a stub on state terrorism, due to the bias editing of yours. It was around 40% at that stage and now you are trying to misinterpret what I have said above, to deceive the others.

WP:OSE states that it is a rationale that may be valid in some contexts but not in others. Since most of the countries that have separate pages on 'state' and 'non state terrorism', do not have separate section on each other, WP:OSE is not a valid strict Misplaced Pages policy to add a separate section on state terrorism in this page. The examples you have used are pretty much irrelevant to the situation we have in this page.

The topic covered by 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' is the non state terrorism of the country and it is the general term used in Misplaced Pages article titles to address non state terrorism related issues by country (See others pages on terrorism by country). Anyone who reads the page State terrorism in Sri Lanka can understand the non neutrality of that page due to one sided bias editing. The page on Terrorism in Sri Lanka is very much different to the other at the moment. BTW, do you know the new user, who has removed the sourced section on proscribed organizations (initially added by User:Blackknight12) in the page 'terrorism in Sri Lanka'? If yes, tell him not do so, because probably he will be in trouble if he gets reported. --LahiruG 07:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Quark

Out of our remit. Any questions about Misplaced Pages's rules in general should be directed at the help desk or the Teahouse. Mdann52 (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by EnochBethany on 18:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Quark (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EnochBethany (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Reverting on a Talk Page. I put an irrelevant link where this is not the issue, because this question does not address any particular dispute, but the rule reverting talk pages. And I don't know where else to ask this question. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Futile discussion. I find my talk page question being reverted/deleted. If I repost it, again it is reverted/deleted. I want to know the rule on this. I came across this Wiki rule: "If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not "edit wars" . . . . Does that mean that we can go on forever; my posting the same talk page question and another erasing it. How do you think we can help? Simply let me read the complete rules on this so I will know how to handle repetitive deletion/reverting on a Talk Page. Talk:Quark discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Could you include a diff related to this? Since you appear never to have made a contribution to that talk page. The closest was commentary you added to Talk:Quark–gluon plasma in December 2014. --‖ Ebyabe - Inspector General ‖ 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC) I think EnochBethany was referring to the deletion of a WP:BLP-violating assertion that was followed by a question as to its veracity at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC) We should probably add @Elizium23:, the user who carried out the removal. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC) The following rules are relevant to the abovementioned dispute. WP:BLP says in the lede, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." WP:3RR holds me exempt from observing 3RR: " Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) No, as I specifically said, this is not about any specific dispute on any talk page, but about what the rules are. Please confine the discussion to my question. And please do not confuse the rules on editing an article with rules on talk page discussions. I find my comments on a talk page, a question on the subject being reverted/deleted. If I repost it, again it is reverted/deleted. I want to know the rule on this. I came across this Wiki rule: "If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not 'edit wars' . . . ." Does that mean that we can go on forever; my posting the same talk page question and another erasing it. Is the foregoing a valid rule, or are there other rules on this subject? (EnochBethany (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)) Well, speaking hypothetically, WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page" (emphasis added), noting that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So, talk page posts that include unsourced assertions (even if they are asking about the veracity of those assertions) can be removed, as they are on "any Misplaced Pages page." WP:BLP goes on to warn that "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Furthermore, WP:3RR forbids "more than three reverts on a single page" within 24 hours of each other, noting that "A "page" means any page on Misplaced Pages, including talk and project space." It So, reverting repeatedly would likely get one blocked in general, but especially so if the edit happened to violate WP:BLP. Also, the page you are citing is Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars, which explicitly states that it is a humor page. It is in no way a rule, and it is a really bad idea to try to present it as one. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Since the rule you quote on BLP is preceded by "which is usually done with an inline citation," it is obvious that in concerns assertions in an article, not the talk page, since inline-citations are not essentials to talk pages. And yes the citation does come from a humor page, but it is giving a non-humor rule about adding to the humor article -- or so it seems to me. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)) What part of "any Misplaced Pages page" do you not understand? And how could rules which only serve as qualifications for entries only on that specific humor page possibly trump a policy that explicitly states "any Misplaced Pages page" that is in place to legally protect the site? Seriously, that line of argument is so ridiculous that if a brand new account made that argument I would have to report it for trolling. If you see a page labelled "humor," do not pretend that an out of context portion of something that applies only to that page trumps a policy that states it applies to any page on the site. It's really that simple. And if you're going to do so, actually state which page you're citing -- because hiding it looks dishonest. If you really believe you are in the right, go right ahead and restore the edit. If you think you're going to be blocked for doing so, consider if it's because you shouldn't have added that edit to begin with. It's that simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC) I think you might want to shift the discussion to what I may do on a specific talk page (ad hominem) instead of confining the discussion to what the rules are on talk pages. But lets try to limit the discussion to the issue, not persons. You seem to think that the rule on BLP articles applies to talk pages, even when the talk page presents a report of what is being said & asks if it is valid material to add to the article, without making any assertion at all about the person's biography itself. But I think your rule interpretation is wrong. It says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. It is obvious that the rule is directed at articles, rather than talk pages. Persons do not have NPOV on talk pages, verifiability, nor are accused of original research for stating what they have found themselves. Inline citations have nothing to do with talk pages. At any rate, if there are specific rules which distinguish edit warring on articles vs violations of freedom of speech on talk pages, I would like to see those rules, so as not to run afoul of them. Now if someone posts a question on a talk page & an edit war ensues, who is the warrior? The first one who goes over 3? Obviously the first poster will not the first one to exceed 3, but the reverter will be the first one over 3. But instead of edit warring on the talk page (which seems impossible anyway per Misplaced Pages rule), I would just like to read the rules on the subject and understand what they are. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)) Oh, sorry I misunderstood your questions. The actual rule you need is WP:IDHT. Hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)I don't "seem to think" that BLP applies to talk pages, I know. What part of "any Misplaced Pages page" do you not understand? Misquoting the letter of the law does not trump the spirit of the law -- any unsourced material about living persons is to be removed immediately. I have commented on behavior, not on persons. Taking an out of context portion of a humor page to argue against a foundational policy that explicitly applies to any page on Misplaced Pages was a bad idea, regardless of who did it. Hiding which page the out-of-context quote was taken from to try and cover that up was at best incompetent, if not dishonest, regardless of who did it. Stating that attribution is usually (which does not mean always) done with an inline citation does not mean that it can only be done with an inline citation. It also does not mean that there are no citations on talk pages. On talk pages, it is extremely common for editors to say "according to (source title, source author, source publisher and page numbers), (source author) claims that..." It is WP:Wikilawyering (and bad wikilawyering) to claim that "usually done with an inline citation" means that the previous phrase "any Misplaced Pages page" does not actually mean what it says. People are regularly told all the time that their original research is not welcome on a talk page. Citations are often found on talk pages, and inline citations are not the only way to do citations. "Freedom of speech" is a governmental concept, and Misplaced Pages is a private entity. WP:3RR and precedent at WP:3rrNB are clear that any person to revert more than three times is an edit warrior. The person to first add something can be an edit warrior quite easily if they are reverted by multiple people. WP:3RR says that it applies to any page. The idea that it does not apply to talk pages is from a completely incompetent attempt to misappropriate an out-of-context portion of a humor page. There is absolutely no reason to believe that WP:3rr does not apply to a talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Well, I see no profit in continuing this exchange. I wish you all well & peace. I Intend to check back to see if anyone has any further rules to refer to. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)) Volunteer comment - The original poster says that they have a question about what the rules in Misplaced Pages area, and doesn't know anywhere else to ask the question. Either WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse/Questions are good places to ask questions about Misplaced Pages, including about what the rules, policies, and guidelines are. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greek bailout_referendum,_2015

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Greek bailout referendum, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Impru20 (talk · contribs)
• EconomicsEconomics (talk · contribs)
• 94.66.43.52 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute involves the inclusion of a GPO poll on the Greek referendum. The polling company, GPO, said that the numbers were released prematurely and where only fragments of a larger study, and that it would take legal measures to ensure the quality and security of its research. After these numbers were leaked several news sources (e.g. the Guardian) reported them, although later questioned their validity. There is currently a dispute going on concerning the inclusion of these poll results in the article. Numerous users have requested that is removed or hidden until GPO releases the rest of its results, while one user is bent on maintaining them. Simultaneously, another poll by the company Palmos was hidden because it also was leaked prematurely from its polling company, even though it was also reported several times. There is a large and rather antagonistic dispute going on in the "talk" page that might or might not be motivated by private opinions on the Greek referendum. The first poll in question, that by GPO, is the sole poll to show a the "yes" side having a lead, which might possibly be contributing into the arguments concerning its inclusion into the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to enter the dispute using a more conciliatory tone hoping to communicate between the two sides. This attempt was unsuccessful.

How do you think we can help?

The most straightforward way would be decide if it follows Misplaced Pages's standards to publish this prematurely leaked and incomplete poll or not on the official page, and then follow a similar guideline considering the Palmos Poll as well.

Summary of dispute by Impru20

Dispute consisted on whether to publish or not the results of an opinion poll's leaked results which were considered incomplete and unauthorised by the pollster itself. One user insisted on considering the data as official despite the pollster having denied it, arguing that secondary sources were doing so, despite later those same secondary sources questioning the validity of the data due to the pollster's response. The dispute has centered on the GPO poll, as the Palmos poll went almost ignored by the user in question. However, I believe this dispute can be considered to be solved now, as GPO has finally submitted the final and complete results of its poll as we speak, which are different than the "incomplete" results initially shown, proving that the poll's earlier suggestion for publication lacked motivation. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by EconomicsEconomics

Summary of dispute by 94.66.43.52

Greek bailout_referendum,_2015 discussion

• Volunteer comment - Is this thread still applicable, or can it be closed as Overtaken by Reality or something? The actual referendum happened. Is a leaked poll still notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Hewitt

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bob Hewitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Autumnox (talk · contribs)
• Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The flag icon used in the person's bio box. A few have agreed that since the person is a South African, the flag should be the current South African flag. However, 1 editor insists that the pre-1994 flag (the apartheid flag) be used, since that was when the person was an active tennis player.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Please state the purpose of flags in the bio box of articles relating to a person. If you agree with Fyunck(click) that the flag represents "active professional tennis era" instead of nationality, the bio box should be worded as such.

Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click)

Every tennis player uses these flag icons in the infobox per MoS "The infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." That is to represent sporting nationality. Flags cannot be used to represent citizenship/birthplace/residence, again per MoS. So if there is a flag it MUST represent their participation in international sports. Examples include grand slam winners Ivan Lendl, Jan Kodeš, Martina Navratilova. I do believe their was a dispute in the past on a different player where the decision was since no consensus "no flag at all." This player hasn't been brought to a full RfC so I can't say whether there is consensus one way or the other. But again EVERY player has these flags in this exact location to represent their sports country in international events. These players wouldn't be notable except for playing tennis so this is the general stance at Misplaced Pages Tennis project. Certainly there are exceptions but I don't see one here. His birthplace is listed and his residence is listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bob Hewitt discussion

• Volunteer comment - There has been discussion at the talk page. The applicable guideline concerning the use of flags for athletes is WP:MOSICON. However, this MOS page can be read in either of two ways. It says that sometimes former national flags should be used for valid historical reasons; but it also says that some flags, including the pre-1994 flag of South Africa, may be controversial. Because the MOS guideline is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

One thing though... you mentioned MoSIcon and it specifically states: "the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport." That is what we use on every article of tennis bios. Hewitt is no exception. If really controversial we could possibly get rid of it and use no icon. But we cannot use his country today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And lets look at another Grand Slam tournament winner from 1937, Henner Henkel. He played under three German flags: / / , none of which are the current flag icon. It's a German Empire flag, a Weimar Republic flag and a nazi flag... and that's a controversial flag. There is also Jan Kodeš Czechoslovakia. His country today is the Czech Republic but he played under Czechoslovakian rule, so that's the flag icon he gets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I am willing to open this case. I have suggested that an RFC be used on whether to use the pre-1994 flag. Does anyone have any comments on that? Does anyone have anything else to say? Please comment on content (which flag to use) and not on contributors. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by editors

I have no problem, though if it's an RfC I would think that WikiProject Tennis will simply go with what has been done for a decade. I haven't let the project know about this particular disagreement... trying to keep it calm. But if you feel the case has merit (I of course don't) then by all means open up an RfC. Wording of the RfC would be important. Remember that MoS does not allow flag icons in the infobox for where a person lives now... only for the nation they represented in sports. So it's a question of pre-1994 flag or no flag that the RfC should be based. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Haptic-feedback (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the politics section of the life extension page, I mentioned that life extension is a focus of the presidential campaign of Zoltan Istvan and his Transhumanist Party.

It was removed by Jytdog because he thought that the cited source was self-published. I refuted this on the reliable sources notice board. The only third-party user to comment, Rhoark, also disagreed with Jytdog.

I added the content again with an additional cited source, but Jytdog removed that, too. He claimed this time that it was off topic and "coatrack". I asked him why a political campaign focused on life extension would be off topic in a section about the politics of life extension, but he has not given a reason. Instead, he continued to insist that it was. He then attacked me ad hominem and told me that he would ignore the discussion until a bizarre requirement was met: that I "bring a source like NYT".

His accusation did, however, prompt a discussion with another user, Ronz, about how much weight the subject should be given, based on its sources. I thus demonstrated how several reliable sources mentioned the campaign and life extension, and I made my argument with multiple quotes from the sources that discuss life extension in depth. Ronz has not since rebutted my argument.

Jytdog's accusation also sparked debate about the applicability of Misplaced Pages's soapbox policy. I have asked how my neutral statement violated this, but Jytdog's and Ronz's replies have only been about Istvan's words, rather than the content of my edit. They seem to conflate my words with Istvan's and ignore that the policy explicitly allows neutral mentions of political advocacy.

I added the content again, with wording adjusted to appease advocacy and "coatrack" worries, but Jytdog reverted it, saying there was "no consensus".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than what is mentioned above, I have reached out to Jytdog on his Talk page and replied to his messages on my own Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I think that a neutral, third-party analysis of Jytdog's reasons for reverting my edits, along with my rebuttals, would help us come to a consensus on whether the content in question should be kept in the article.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

This matter seems very urgent to Haptic, who doesn't seem to understand that there is WP:NODEADLINE here. While it is great that he/she figured out DR and stopped edit warring, I think we could let the discussion at the Talk page run a bit longer to get other voices. But if Ronz, who is a yet more experienced editor than I, thinks DR is appropriate now, I will consent to going forward. I also want to note that i took a bunch of time out of my day to explain why his edits are SOAPBOXy, here at their Talk page, but the response to that was pure WP:IDHT - even in their post above, they are not understanding the problem. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi - what i wrote above, was that I would bow to Ronz's judgement here; I do not see that Ronz confirmed that DR is appropriate now...Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So you will not continue to participate? Kharkiv07 (T) 02:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ronz

I suggest Haptic-feedback WP:FOC, become more familiar with the relevant policies (especially WP:NOT), and make some alternative proposals.

Injecting political trivia into an article like Life extension, using it as a coatrack and soapbox for promotion, is not uncommon across Misplaced Pages, but only because of the relatively poor enforcement of WP:NOT and the massive problems Misplaced Pages has in general with advocates trying to bias this encyclopedia to their purposes.

The section of the article is what looks to be an inappropriate combination of two topics, both poorly sourced: ethical and political issues, the political bit being the worst of it. Today, it's just a pr campaign. "If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy" . --Ronz (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Life extension#presidential campaign of transhumanist candidate discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  Hello. I will be happy to start mediation of this case. Allow an hour or two to familiarize myself with the issue at hand, and then I will make my first formal comment. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you! --Haptic-feedback (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Hello, and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Before we begin, I would like to make a few procedural comments. First, I am here to steer the conversation in the right direction, not to make a decision of any sort. As for your responsibilities as a party to the dispute, I need you to comment on the content, not the contributors and to only comment in your own section. Failure to abide by these rules may lead to the termination of the discussion.

I would like to begin by making sure that I fully understand the situation at hand.

1. This change is the one that Haptic-feedback wants. This is the change that all further discussion will be about, until a new version is proposed.
2. Jytdog and Ronz object to the change on the following grounds:

1. WP:SOAP
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:OFFTOPIC (Note that this is an essay)
4. WP:COATRACK (Note that this is an essay)

1. Haptic-feedback refutes this by saying there are a number of sources which talk about the presidential candidate.
2. Ronz says "If we put aside for now the interviews, puff-pieces, and human interest stories, what do we have left?" and later says "Of those left from my question, which of them discuss life extension, the topic of this article, in any degree of detail? If none, then it's probably not worth mention". To this point, Haptic-feedback says that there's background information in those articles as well.

From this, I believe all parties can agree on the following statement:

"If it can be proved that multiple reliable sources that aren't providing merely interviews and/or puff-pieces provide detailed background on the candidate's standing on the issue of Life extension then it may be included in a neutral fashion in the article."

I would like to hear responses to my bullets concerning the scope and depth of the dispute, as this will be our primary working points, and I'd like to hear if all parties agree with the previous statement. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Haptic-feedback

I agree with that statement. Thanks again, Kharkiv, for taking the time to help us with your spot-on analysis. :) --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Jytdog

Most of the summary is OK. The statement by the moderator ("If it can be proved that multiple reliable sources that aren't providing merely interviews and/or puff-pieces provide detailed background on the candidate's standing on the issue of Life extension then it may be included in a neutral fashion in the article.") ignores the issues of SOAP and UNDUE and their interconnection that are the heart of the content dispute. Problems:

• the part of NPOV that is relevant here is WP:UNDUE and the statement doesn't deal with that.
• the candidate himself is a WP:FRINGE candidate presently (he says himself that he is almost no chance of winning) whose views therefore don't matter in an encyclopedia article. (per WP:UNDUE)
• what any candidate is saying now is campaigning and may never be real. Candidates say all kinds of things. Obama said he would close Gitmo during the campaign, and the press made a big deal out of that at the time. Our article on Gitmo says nothing about that (see here) (This has to do with UNDUE as well as WP:NOTNEWS (part of NOT)
• The only reason we are having this discussion at all is a violation of WP:SOAP - also part of NOT. WP is a not a platform for advocacy. It is a fact - not a personal attack - that Haptic's account is a WP:SPA for life extension/transhumanist topics per their contribs. Please refocus the statement you want us to gel around, to include the relevance of NOT and UNDUE. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Ronz

We've gotten sidetracked from the content problems and how they might be addressed. I hadn't yet brought up WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, other than the implication from my very first comment on the dispute, "If something comes of it in the future we should add it as a part of whatever makes it noteworthy".

It appears that the only reason this is getting any press is because of the campaign cycle, and it's an admitted pr tactic rather than anything new or different that deserves coverage in the article.

If there is anything new or different in the proposed sources, beyond what is already covered in the article, it has not been identified.

So, does a head of an organization that is using the current political campaign cycle to drive up publicity deserve mention in the article? I'd say no per NOT and NPOV.

We should also be looking at the section in general. It's unclear if any political issues belong at all. The section already has all the problems that we've brought up, so maybe it's no surprise that there's the temptation to continue in the same vein.

To address Kharkiv07 question directly, I think scope and depth is larger.

To address whether or not this is an appropriate DR step: I'm hoping it might get up back to following WP:DR and focusing on the content, proposed sources, and article context. However, I'm well aware that when it comes to injecting publicity and politics into articles, even BLP articles, we tend to do a poor job of following NOT and NPOV. I don't think anything short of ArbCom is going to do anything about these problems and this dispute certainly isn't going to ArbCom. NPOVN might be helpful at a later point. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:MGK#Name dispute (the ending of the confusion)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:MGK#Name dispute (the ending of the confusion) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Noq (talk · contribs)
• PsychopathicAssassin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor is insisting that MGKs own web page is definitive for his birthname and trumps the police report provided that gives his first name as Richard. This has been going on for some time and he has been reverted several times by several editors including myself. Initially this was discussed on my talk page here Talk:Noq#MGK and further discussion on the article talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have pointed the editor to several policy documents both in the talk pages and in the edit summaries.

How do you think we can help?

I need someone else to review the edits.

Summary of dispute by PsychopathicAssassin

Talk:MGK#Name dispute (the ending of the confusion) discussion

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the talk page, it has not been extensive, and so dispute resolution appears to be premature. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Metropolitan State_University

premature filing. While the intent of the filing editor is appreciated, DRN cases require extensive prior discussion on a talk page. From Randomeditor1000's talk page and the article's talk page, it seems both editors are willing to discuss things, just give them some time. Alternatively, the filing editor can simply act as a 3rd opinion, or the two primary editors can request that if they deem fit. Cannolis (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Climate change_skeptic

Ooops.... for some reason I thought mediation rules applied (i.e., no content disputes). Do I have the wrong venue? Never been here before. Take pity please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Climate change skeptic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)
• ‎Mann jess (talk · contribs)
• ‎Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am seeking behavior/communication assistance, not resolution of a content issue.

Just FYI....the underlying content has to do with the concepts of climate change skepticism and climate change denial; it has involved many editors at many venues and the whole thing falls under jurisdiction of WP:ARBCC.

Drilling down to the immediate communication/behavior problem.....

Two other users have accused each other of not answering one another's questions. If true, these users may be causing disruption (see bullet 4 at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS).

I have suggested that both editors extract from the multi-venue walls of text a numbered list of the important questions they feel have gone unanswered. After all, this is a no-brainer thing for people to do if they are here to build consensus.

In reply, User Peter Gulutzan put the onus on others to package an effort at DR. OK, I can do that.

Without reading through 4+ months of talk pages spanning user space, wikipedia talk, various noticeboards, and multiple article talk pages, I would like to see Peter's numbered list of calm, neutrally phrased, RS-based and policy-based questions he thinks are important enough to complain that the other editors have not answered them.

Hopefully, Jess will also provide a list once she has had a reasonable chance to reply. I'm already posting this because Peter did reply, and its clear he's going to hiss and spit at Jess for non-response rather than stay focussed on the important questions. This mediation filing is intended to reduce the hissing and spitting and get those interested in building consensus to put our eyes back on the ball.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've asked both parties for a numbered list of calm, neutrally phrased, RS-based and policy-based questions he thinks the other editors have not answered.

How do you think we can help?

You could help them focus on back and forth Q&A, and referee when one asserts that the other's answer is insufficient.

If we could increase signal-to-noise, and help them stop talking past each other maybe there would be some progress.

Summary of dispute by ‎Mann jess

Summary of dispute by ‎Peter Gulutzan

Talk:Climate change_skeptic discussion

1. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms
2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms

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