Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elvey (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 29 May 2013 (→Page Plus_Cellular: TransporterMan improperly closed. Please don't revert this edit, at least not without addressing the flawed reasoning for closure.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 17 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.

Talk:Digvijaya Singh_(politician)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Digvijaya Singh (politician) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Soham321 (talk · contribs)
• MohitSingh (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wish to include a section on Praise in the WP article on the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and current General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Digvijay Singh. This is praise expressed for Digvijay by his political adversary, current Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan who had commended and praised Digvijay in a public speech. So the praise is significant because it is by his political adversary who is occupying a prominent position and because the praise was expressed in a public lecture. Further the praise tends to balance out the criticism of Digvijay in his WP article. All the other three users do not want the section on praise to be included in the WP article of Digvijay.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Put this up for discussion on the talk page. User:Darkness Shines and User:MohitSingh have responded saying they stick to their position.

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to insert the edit in the main article if you think it to be appropriate.

Opening comments by MohitSingh

• It was a courtesy comment as can be seen from the occasion where he said so. It was an All India Kshatriya Samaj Federation Convention and both Chouhan and Singh belong to this caste. Chouhan had also praised the caste in general and said that it had played important roles in India. Both of them are the most known person from this caste in the state. The comment prima facie appears to be a courtesy comment. It may also be assumed from this news report where Singh tried to take credit for the development in the state. This clearly shows presence of any brotherhood between them as has been portrayed. This is just some of the leftover from a huge editing done by the user previously (now removed).
• Article contains no information about his development work but just his praise.
• Arguendo, this praise is not that relevant and worth that it may be put as a separate section in the biography page. At the max, it may be covered in a line after any line where his development works as Chief Ministers may be mentioned.
• Misplaced Pages should not be used as a forum to put all praises for a person. The concerned user has just been trying to soapbox this page which can be seen from the history of the page.--Mohit Singh (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Darkness Shines

Opening comments by Sitush

Talk:Digvijaya Singh_(politician) discussion

Comment: The article should contain a little of both. The most important negative things about someone, and the most important positive things about someone. That is what we aim for; a Neutral Point of View (or NPOV). Having a section dedicated to the praise of someone would be giving it undue attention. Just mentioning that his political rival has praised him at one stage isnt. The article shouldn't be a soapbox one way or the other. Take the article on Adolf Hitler, most people would consider this man to be undeniably evil, and you could write an entire book on what he did wrong (many people have!). But the article itself just focuses on the facts of his life, and career; with comparatively little directly dealing with anti-Jewish reforms and the Holocaust. In essence, general criticisms of political (or any) views that people may hold, more appropriately belong on the page of the viewpoint, rather than the page of the person who holds them. This is even moreso true for those who are still living. -- Nbound (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages also has a policy on articles about living people: WP:BLP. And it is pretty comprehensive, both parties should try their best to follow it, even if it doesnt agree with their own opinions about how the article should be. Unfairly biased pages can be sbject to deletion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is no further comments I will close this case in the next day or so. -- Nbound (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Khan Noonien Singh#Northern Indian Vs Indian - Indirect Racism and Insensitivity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sikh-history (talk · contribs)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.74.156 (talk · contribs) (and various other dynamic variations)

Dispute overview

In the lead of Khan Noonien Singh I proposed that it should state what is said in the original "Space Seed"- Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1. Episode 22. 1967-02-16. NBC." the line Marla McGivers quotes i.e. "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.". This should be summarised to "probably a Sikh, from northern India".

We had consensus on the talk page for this some months ago but this user David Fuchs keps reverting this to simply "Indian". I don't think this is accurate and what the actual script of the TV episode alludes to.

I also feel as an adminstrator he is strong arming articles, and threatening me with WP:ANI. There maybe a case of WP:OWN here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried talking. I've got other editors involved. I've even got WP:Consensus, but he just overides it.

How do you think we can help?

I think in the case of resolving dispute with administrators it is best to get a peer review. I think I'm quite a reasonable editor (I have my faults and can get frustrated), but I don't think I have unreasonble here. I have managed to get WP:consensus with other editors apart from him.

Opening comments by David Fuchs

User:Sikh-history primarily edits and advocates for topics related to Sikhism. Where this comes into play is his insistence that the article on fictional character Khan Noonien Singh prominently feature the character's (supposed) Sikh ancestry, and that merely describing the character in the lead as Indian (which is not in doubt) as opposed to North Indian (which is said by a character but never verified as true in the canon) is "on a personal level quite insulting and verging on racism". Likewise, mentioning in the lead that during the character's development he started as a Nordic character is somehow problematic (although we have a specific reliable source stating that; the facts are not in dispute.) I cannot address the user's deep-seated concern that somehow saying just "Indian" is problematic and insulting, despite the fact that we cannot describe him as otherwise without going beyond what the primary source says. There's other issues, such as trying to use articles referencing Misplaced Pages as sources that show how Misplaced Pages should reference it, but my main concern is that the user is incapable of constructive, source-based editing when they have decided on an outcome promoting Sikhism. If I'm not described as insensitive and borderline racist in my conduct, or of somehow abusing my adminship, I'm likened to a person with autism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 99.192.74.156

I have been actively involved in the discussion of this matter on the Khan talk page as well, so let me add my 2 cents. The page currently reads, According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman Sikh from the Asian continent. I support putting changing that to, According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman who is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". For me the use of the phrase "described as" rather than "is" permits the more specific "northern India". I'm not sure the lead can say "Khan is Indian" or even "Khan is Asian" because we don't actually have a source for any definitive "is" claim. I had previously thought there was a source for the "Khan is Indian" claim, but I don't see one in the article. If someone has such a source, then I would support making the text read, Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman from India who, according to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". Finally, I don't understand why the discussion got moved from the Khan talk page to here or why I was left out of the discussion here, but here I am anyway! 99.192.74.156 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (I have a dynamic IP address, but if you check the Khan talk page all the current comments signed by IP addresses starting "99.192" are from me.)

Comment: Multiple IPs can be confusing and are generally frowned upon, whether or not the user is using them to gain an advantage or not. If possible get yourself an account. This will also allow other users to contact you on your user talk page. -- Nbound (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Khan Noonien Singh

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. Sikh-history, can you please clarify on your views on the character description of "Indian" and what you believe is incorrect about that label? smileguy91 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My only request is that in the Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1. Episode 22. 1967-02-16. NBC." the charachter Khan Noonien Singh is described by Marla McGivers as "From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.". This description should be used in the lead of the article i.e. something along the lines of "he is described as probably Sikh from the northern India area". My learned friend above David, wished to shorten this to "Indian". I say this is not accurate. This doesn't reflect what was said by the charachters in the series. I think we should strive to be as accurate as possible. All this argument about cannon is a non-argument (we're not talking the Theory of Relativity here), because we're talking about a TV series, and the best evidence we have is charachter interaction. Marla McGivers in the context of the TV series is an expert Historian. Thanks SH 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand from the comments made so far, David Fuchs believes that the only appropriate conclusion from the source is that the character be described as "Indian", and believes that Sikh-history wants to prominently feature the "supposed" Sikh ancestry of the character, and that labeling the character as Sikh will undermine the neutrality and factuality of the article. That label of "Indian" is considered by Sikh-history to be an insult, and Sikh-history wishes to label the character as "Sikh". The character is almost definitely Sikh in name, and it is, according to David Fuchs, confirmed by another character in the series, but the fact is not verifiable enough to be put on Misplaced Pages. I did take a look at the Big Bang Theory comment that Sikh-history posted, and I did find the statements a little vague, and may or may not be insulting depending on the intentions of the comparison. Please clarify on that, Sikh-history, if you can. Regardless of the situation, Asperger syndrome insults aside, Sikh-history, David Fuchs, is there a compromise that both of you possibly can agree on? Please state your ideas on compromise below. smileguy91 16:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Smileguy91, I am a volunteer here at DRN. Wouldn't the best solution simply be to not mention his ethnicity in the lede at all? It's not a major plot point in any of the movies or TV series, after all, so there's not much reason for it to be there. I'd suggest:

...he is played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman Sikh from the Asian continent who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. After being revived from suspended animation in 2267 by the crew of the USS Enterprise, Khan attempts to capture the starship, but is thwarted by James T. Kirk and exiled on Ceti Alpha V to create a new society with his people. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, set fifteen years after "Space Seed", Khan escapes his exile and sets out to exact revenge upon Kirk.

The character was originally conceived of as a Nordic superman by scriptwriter Carey Wilber before his ancestry was changed in script revisions. Harve Bennett, executive producer for Star Trek II, chose Khan as the villain for the film. To reflect the time spent marooned on an inhospitable world, Khan was given a costume that looked as though it had been scavenged from different items and showed off Montalbán's physique. Montalbán's portrayal has been positively received by critics and fans; Khan was voted as one of the top ten greatest film villains of all time by the Online Film Critics Society.

All the stuff I've struck out seems far too detailed for the lede. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

smileguy91 how else do we verify charachters in TV series ? Either from the book or script? Is that right? furthermore I am happy with " described as northern Indian" or "probably Sikh and described as northern Indian" but not just "Indian". I'm also happy with him being described as Nordic in earlier scripts. The Sikh thing is not an issue. It's accuracy to the script.

Also I didn't mean to be insulting to David, but his comments and manner is insensitive. There is being WP:Bold and then there is just plain insensitive. Sheldon Cooper from BBT is insensitive but he's a nice guy at heart. Thats all I was saying. I was'nt talking about learning difficulties or mental health issues, I'm sorry it's been interpreted like that. It's a bit like WPOR to derive that from what I said.

Thanks SH 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Also the WP:Verifiability according to this is not in question of this source. It's more to do with WP:UNDUE and David saying it is not "canon" . I and many watchers of the episode Space Seed disagree in News articles:

1. http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n92436.htm
2. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/bay-city/index.ssf/2013/05/star_trek_into_darkness.html
3. http://theurbanwire.com/2013/05/17/star-trek-into-darkeness/
4. http://www.trektoday.com/content/2013/05/star-trek-into-darkness-hollywood-premiere/
5. http://nerdreactor.com/2013/05/16/a-trekkie-review-of-star-trek-into-darkness-with-spoilers/
6. http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/star-trek-into-darkness-thrill-ride-till-the-end/article4705910.ece
7. http://www.justpressplay.net/reviews/10684-star-trek-into-darkness.html
8. http://www.film.com/movies/star-trek-into-darkness-khan

Thanks SH 20:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sikh-history, please check your comments starting from "Also I didn't mean to be insulting..." You, probably on accident, put "I was talking about learning difficulties" instead of "I wasn't". Please correct that to prevent any possible offense stemming from that. "Probably Sikh and described as northern Indian" should be acceptable to both parties, in my opinion. smileguy91 20:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Transporter Man's comments above, I think gutting that section the lead means that it does not adequately cover the development of the character; the latter section probably needs to be better worded because all the previous accolades were for one portrayal of the character and that's no longer the case. The section covering the character's development in Into Darkness does need to be cleaned up and expanded with out-of-universe information, but that's tangental to the issue. The primary reason I wrote Indian in the lead in the first place was because it contrasted with the original conception of the character, which I think is a relevant point to lead out with.

As to Sikh's comments, if you read through the sources above you will note that some are not reliable, some are simply reader/anonymous comments and then some appear to be using Misplaced Pages as its source of information in the first place, meaning it's hardly useful as a source (violating WP:CIRCULAR). For example, from the above source, : seems to crib its language from the last sentence of the lead ("voted as one of the top ten greatest film villains of all time by the Online Film Critics Society"). This isn't the first example of this, and there are even more blatant ones (such as ).

Finally, there's the matter of Star Trek canon. As mentioned above, the character only guesses that he's from Northern India, and probably is a Sikh. The northern India bit is thus speculation, and it doesn't really matter if a New York Post writer cribs Misplaced Pages and writes it as such—it's still wrong, elevating in-episode supposition to fact. We can, however, easily cite Khan's origin as India, generally (for instance, from the official site.). Thus, I see no reason why saying the character is Indian in the lead, and providing McGivers' description in the relevant subsection of the article, is not appropriate or acceptable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true that "we can...easily cite Khan's origin as India" and have that properly cited, and would be an acceptable solution, but we do need to consider Sikh-history's opinion in a final solution to this dispute, since he opines that the label "Indian" is offensive, and can be compared to this, as Sikh-history said: "It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, people describe it as a duck, but because the duck did not call himself a duck, therefore it is not a duck". Yet the official website labels him as, and forgive me if this is offensive, Indian. Any further opinions? smileguy91 23:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It's more, "It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, people describe it as a duck, but the duck called himself a mallard, therefore it is not a duck". Correct me if I'm wrong but surely any Northern Indian person is Indian. Just as I tend to think of myself as English but you could call me British and it would be equally true. Nor would I object. Of course, there's lots I don't know about India and Indian people, Northern or otherwise, so perhaps there is something I don't know about. Could Sikh-history please explain why it's offensive to use a less specific description? CarrieVS (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to make sense of SH's claim that it is either offensive or insulting to refer to a northern Indian as simply an Indian, but I can't. On the Khan talk page he wrote, "Ok, if you called an Englishman a European, I bet you he would take issue with that. In that same way many northern indian tribes take issue with being called an Indian." This contradicts both my experience of knowing many people from England and many from India. SH has been asked many times to explain it, but it still does not really make sense.

Having tried to understand what he is saying, this is the best I can come up with: If you are trying to say something about Khan's citizenship, then saying he is "Indian" would not be insulting. India is a country and the citizens of that country routinely identify their nationality as "Indian". But if you are trying to say something about Khan's ethnicity, to say "Indian" is to fail to do so and shows a lack of understanding of the ethnic diversity that is contained within the country of India. So, to take a different example, most people might find it odd (to say the least) or perhaps even offensive to describe Wendie Malick or Charlize Theron as "African-American" even though Malik's father was Egyptian and Egypt is certainly a part of Africa while Theron was born in South Africa and her ancestry goes back several centuries there. The term "African-American" is generally understood to be a term referring to race, not merely continent of heritage.

So having said all that, if saying "Khan is Indian" is meant as a description of his nationality, then it is impossible to find it insulting or offensive. If saying "Khan is Indian" is meant as a description of his ethnicity, then it is inaccurate in a way that demonstrates ignorance of the ethnic diversity of the country of India. When the character in "Space Seed" says Khan is "from the northern India area, I'd guess" she must be commenting on his ethnicity, not his citizenship. Otherwise there would be no need to specify "northern" or to generalize with the word "area" (which suggests she allows for the possibility he is from outside India, but near northern India). When the official Star Trek website (that David linked to) says Khan is from "Earth's India in the late 20th century", the only charitable reading of it is that it must be commenting on his nationality, not his ethnicity. Which means we have a definitive source on Khan's nationality, but only a "guess" as to what his ethnicity "probably" is.

If SH comes along and tells me I have it all wrong here, then I give up. This is the best I can do to understand what his concern is. 99.192.53.166 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.156)

I must agree with 99.192.53.166 on the issue of understanding Sikh-history's concerns, and I must add that the concerns, according to him/her, was not adequately taken into consideration by David Fuchs. However, I must doubt the fact that David Fuchs was abusing administrator privileges per se as Sikh-history was saying; he was just not taking Sikh-history's opinions into account adequately. On the contrast, factually, I believe that David Fuchs is correct that it is already established with 100% correct sources that Singh is from India, and is, and again forgive me if this is insulting, Indian. You can't get any better sources of characters' nationalities than the official website of Star Trek. That's just my opinion, but I maintain that this dispute must be handled neutrally. smileguy91 03:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Purely as a drive by comment since I can't get myself enthused over this, there is a difference between "Indian" and "Sikh" since Sikhs are from a very small and very specific part of India (though why it is offensive to be one or the other escapes me for the moment!). Sort of like Spaniards are Europeans but, if someone is specifically identified as a 'probably spaniard', one wouldn't say he was a European. Unless it is clear that this person of genetically engineered magnificence is either a Sikh or an Indian, I'd suggest going with TransporterMan's formulation. --regentspark (comment) 03:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The real mystery in this case, the one for the ages, is why this Indian/possible Sikh speaks with a Hispanic accent and smells like rich corinthian leather. Perhaps the answer is here. ;-) TransporterMan (TALK) 00:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (Sorry, just couldn't help myself.)

Ok without going to much into the history of partition and citizenship in India, many of my Pakistani and Kashmiri friends will say, if people don't know where they are from, they will not say India, but say "northern India". Many Sikhs will deny they are Indian and say they are Punjabi (northern Indian). I've already gone into the history of India on the Khan talk page viz a viz, India is an artificially created country that has only come about under British rule. It was never united before that because it is so ethnically diverse. If you wish to make a generilisation about Indian ethnicity, then there are two.

1. Indo-Aryan - Northern Indian
2. Dravidian - Southern Indian

Moving onto the duck analogy a Mallard is still a duck, so in other words, people from secondary sources who have watched Space Seed, see Khan as northern Indian, because he looks Northern Indian, acts like a Northern Indian, but he doesn't call hismself as specific type of Northern Indian (a Sikh). The WP:Circular argument does not hold here because the assumption is that journalists have got there information from Misplaced Pages. They may have simply watched the episode of Space Seed (like me) and formed their own opinion. As far as I'm aware Journalism is WP:Reliable.

regentspark in Europe there are many people who are offended at being called European. I know Danes, Swedes, English etc who insisit on being refered by their Nationality, but that is not what I am saying here. This is a TV series, and the best way of identifying a charachetrs origin is through screenplay, imigary and script. I go back to the interaction between Khan and McGivers (an expert Historian in the script). Now if I was saying "he IS a SIKH and Northern Indian" that would be WP:OR. What I am saying is put down what they say in the TV series i.e. "probably Sikh" and "identified as Northern Indian"? Can we get WP:Consensus on this? Thannks SH 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Memory Alpha and their handling of this

I've had a look over at Memory Alpha (Memory Alpha is a Star Trek wiki, it is limited mainly to things directly related to the series), and the two following pages may help the editors discover other ways to handle Khan's ethnicity:

• Khan Noonien Singh
• Sikh

Please note that the exact sentences will be covered by copyright. Details can be found here: . Nbound (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

From the second link we can deduce that Singh is from "northern India," and can be justified as being "northern Indian". It does state that the area is populated by many Sikhs, but never states that Singh himself is a Sikh. smileguy91 20:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, we cant force our real world judgements onto the series, if it said he were probably English and worshipped Thor, then thats what would go into the article (despite it being unlikely that anyone in England worshipped Thor in our reality in the 1990s). If the series says he's probably a Sikh from North India then thats what should go into the article, remember that Misplaced Pages is not censored (Theres even an article on "Nigger"). You can qualify that statement by "according to..." or "but is not confirmed by the character", etc. But any loss of meaning as compared to the show could be considered WP:OR. If someone in production specifically confirmed or denied his Sikh/North Indian heritage, then that is one of the few cases where the series content itself could be overruled -- Nbound (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok are we getting near a . The lede reads at the moment like this:

The character was originally conceived of as a Nordic superman by "Space Seed" scriptwriter Carey Wilber before his ancestry was changed in script revisions. According to the backstory provided in "Space Seed", Khan is a genetically engineered superhuman, "probably a Sikh" from northern India,discuss] who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s

Is this acceptable? ThanksSH 16:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it odd that Khan was "originally conceived" as Nordic (but isn't actually Nordic) and that gets a mention in the lead, a character "guesses" that he is "from the northern India area" (but we don't know if she is right) and that gets a mention in the lead, and he is "probably" a Sikh (based on the speculation of the same character, but we don't really know if he is or not) and that gets a mention in the lead, but the one thing we know with absolute certainty about Khan (sourced by an official Star Trek source) is that he is from India, yet that does not get a mention in the lead. Huh?

How about putting in the lead the only facts we know with absolute certainty about who Khan actually is and leave the rest to the individual section of the page. Let the "Space Seed" section tell us about the character's speculation about Khan's religion and regional origin. Let the "novels" section tell us how there he is said to be from from Chandigarh, Punjab, India. Let the "design and analysis" section tell us how he was originally conceived to be Nordic. And let the STID section tell us whatever things we know about the Khan of the current movie. But in the lead? How about just taking the facts as reported in the official source: "Khan Noonien Singh was a genetically-bred 'superman' of Earth's India in the late 20th century". As David notes, it will need a slight reword for copyright reasons, but those are the fully sourced an 100% known facts about who Khan is. The rest belongs on the page, but none of it in the lead.

So how about this: The character is a genetically engineered superhuman from India who once controlled more than a quarter of the Earth during the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s . 99.192.51.112 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.156)

We've already been through these points. The fact is he is a fictional charachter in a fictional Universe, and the only pointers we have are the interations with other charachters. See above. Read Nbound's points on this. ThanksSH 19:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your last comment makes no sense. I know he is a fictional character in a fictional universe. Did you think I did not know that? I am not sure what you mean by "the only pointers we have are the interations with other charachters". If you mean that the only information we have about characters is what they say about or to each other then you are wrong. Nbound, who you refer to, points out that what official sources say also counts. So my point is that the only information we have about Khan that is not qualified by some sort of "maybe" is what the official source says and it says "Khan Noonien Singh was a genetically-bred 'superman' of Earth's India in the late 20th century".

At this point, I'm ready to finally give up. So long as nowhere in the article does it say "Khan is Sikh" or "Khan is from northern India" without an official source saying so (which so far as anyone knows right now does not exist) I'm happy that the article is not making claims about him that are stronger than what is known. But as it stands, we know for certain that "Khan is Indian" is true of the character who appears in "Space Seed" and nowhere in the article does it say that. That is a very odd omission. But whatever. I give up. 99.192.51.112 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.156)

My dear friend, I to do not want the article to say, He IS Sikh or He IS northern Indian, but just to reflect what he is refered to in the script, i.e.""From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors."." and that is considered WP:Reliable under Misplaced Pages rules. So summarise "he is refered to in the "Space Seed" , "from the northern India area" (which could include Kashmiri's, Pakistani's etc...not just Indian's)...not to bothered by the Sikh bit but could add "probably Sikh". ThanksSH 08:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And this has been in the article for years. The issue you seem to be having is referring to him as Indian (which is not under debate by any source) in the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We're not making any progress on this case; it should be closed shortly. I vouch that we keep the page as it currently is. smileguy91 16:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok lets try another approach. How have we treated other fictional charachters in Star Trek? ThanksSH 10:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

uninvolved passerby Somewhere in the article (bio/history), the quote seems appropriate, but probably NOT the lede, as it is not a important part of his character. He could have been from any location as far as the plot/acting/script was concerned except for that one line. Nothing is obviously influenced or affected by his nationality or religion It is never mentioned again in any medium of the character. (great warriors... so are vikings, zulus, mongols, visigoths, etc) . On a meta level, this entire discussion appears to be a WP:COATRACK for someone's indian/north indian/sikh politics, and really has very little to do with the character or show. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said earlier in this discussion. That now makes three neutral editors — Regentspark, Gaijin42, and me — who believe that the material should be removed from the lede altogether because Kahn's national origins are simply not important enough to be included there. Just sayin'... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite my previous "I give up" (and I still mostly feel that way about getting into any more extensive discussions), let me just note than my most recent opinion on the matter agrees with the three neutral editors about removing the Nordic, Sikh, and northern India stuff from the lead. So make that four votes. 99.192.57.104 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.156)

Ill add mine name to removing it from the lead also. Its not important to understanding the character at all. -- Nbound (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So we are removing all references to Nordic, Indian, North Indian, Sikh from the lede? I can live with that. On a side note, I think Gaijin42's comment on WP:COATRACK is bordering on not WP:AGF. This has nothing to do with my politics. I do however, have a problem with the Euro-Centric bias of Misplaced Pages, which many European editors agree with me on. Thanks SH 09:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As there appears to be consensus on the lead, this can likely be closed soon as long as there are no issues with the explanation being at some other point in the text and its content. If there are any potential issues, let me know, otherwise I'll consider this case worthy of closure within a day or so. (Or someone else will) -- Nbound (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nazi Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Peterzor (talk · contribs)
• Diannaa (talk · contribs)
• Boson (talk · contribs)
• Nug (talk · contribs)
• Rjensen (talk · contribs)
• Kierzek (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

there is a dispute about whenever "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" should be included on the infobox as nazi germany's motto, there were users stating their position but it needs more users to get involved

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i tried reasoning with them

How do you think we can help?

make more third party users state state their position on the nazi germany

Opening comments by Diannaa

A better way for Peterzor to attract more participants to the discussion would be to open a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. I am pretty sure the assistance of a moderator is not required at this point. My comments on the content are as follows: I oppose inclusion of the motto. This was a political slogan and rallying cry of the NSDAP, not to my knowledge adopted as an official motto of the country, which its inclusion in the info box in the "national motto" field implies.

Given that the only source provided so far does not back up the claim that this was a national motto, I am removing it from the article.

My removal has just been reverted by User:Rjensen -- Dianna (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Boson

The meaning of "motto" in the infobox is not clearly defined. I interpret it as "a phrase commonly associated with the country concerned and used nationally by the regime". National symbols do not have to be official. So I am in favour of consistency with other articles, fairly inclusive criteria, and broad editorial judgement - provided that the reader is clearly informed of the actual status of the motto. I believe its inclusion in this case is consistent with the criteria used elsewhere, for instance the motto Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit in the Germany article. In the case of Nazi Germany, there is added confusion because it was a one-party state in which there was a deliberate "equation" of state and party. So I was in favour of including the motto with an appropriate note, as a middle position. I do not think the situation is clear-cut, I have sympathy for the arguments against its inclusion, and I do not have strong views on the subject, so I am happy with any decision. --Boson (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nug

There is no basis why this particular slogan should be selected as a "nation motto". As Henry Conserv in his book National Slogans from Around the World explains, slogans were created for specific purposes, "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" (One Nation, one People, one Leader) was one of many used specifically to build support for Hitler, such as "Führer befiel, wire folgen!" (The leader commands, we follow!), "Alle sagen Ja!" (All say Yes!). Others were created build hate against Jews, such as "Deutschland Juden Frei" (Germany free of Jews) and "Deutsche! Wehrt Euch, Kauf niche bei Juden!" (Germans! Protect yourselves, don't buy from Jews!), and other slogans were created to control women's behaviour "Die Deutsche Frau raucht niche" (The German woman doesn't smoke), and others to condition German youth for war: "Wir Sterben fur Deutschland" (We were born to die for Germany) and "Heute gehort uns Deutschland und morgen die ganze welt" (Today we have Germany, tomorrow the whole world), and so on.

If there was one slogan that could be characterised as a "national motto" it would be "Blut und Boden" (Blood and Soil), not only is this slogan reflected in the colours of the national flag, it forms the essence of Nazi ideology were the land is bound to German blood (and hence the exterminationist policies of "purifying" that land) and the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum that drove Nazi attempts to conquer Europe. --Nug (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Rjensen

I agree with Boson. Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kierzek

As I stated, it was and is one of the best known mottos but not the only one used, as noted above; I agree it is far from being clear cut it was an "official" one for the nation. The better argument is that it was a NSDAP propaganda slogan in the 1930s, pre-war. I am on vacation at the moment and have very limited internet access and time; I will therefore not be commenting further at this point. Dianna, Boson, Rjensen and Nug can carry on as to this just fine without me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the instructions at the top of this page and at WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Im also a DRN volunteer, I agree with Diannaa, insofar that an RfC is probably the best path to use at this stage. There isnt actually a dispute to resolve, just an editor wanting more discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the way I am leaning, but I want to see what, if any, the other named parties say first. Some folks don't read Misplaced Pages on the weekend. Edit: After seeing the comments from other participants, I agree with TransporterMan.--Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the Memorial Day long weekend in the US so other parties may not respond promptly; I dunno where everyone lives. -- Dianna (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the notification was removed from Rjensen's talk page -- Dianna (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

My error. I saw the previous notice on the page and thought the bot had handled the notifications. That will teach me to edit while tired and distracted... :( My apologies; sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The opening party, User:Peterzor, has been blocked as a sock of banned User:Chaosname. -- Dianna (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like my colleagues Nbound and Guy Macon, I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Several points and opinions:

• The indefinite blocking of Peterzor should not cause this listing to be closed since there are other advocates for the inclusion of the motto who have weighed in here. Peterzor's comments both here and at the article talk page no longer have any weight, however, either as persuasion or as a !vote, in accordance with the blocking policy.
• The template documentation says this should be "National motto." That clearly contemplates that whatever is filled in will be "the" national motto, not "a" national motto. In order to fulfill that role, the inserted motto need not be officially–adopted (though if there is an officially-adopted one, it ought to prevail over any popular alternatives unless there was a popular one which was so popular as to cause the official one to be universally ignored), but if there is no official one then it should be one which by consensus or use was the motto which predominated over all other candidates. If there is any disagreement among editors over which one fits that bill, if any (and there is the possibility that there is no clear-cut predominant motto, in which case there shouldn't be any included), then that disagreement should be settled by reference to reliable sources. What should not be included is one which has no or inadequate support in reliable sources but which a consensus of editors merely likes best: all information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable.
• An RFC can be used to try to determine this matter, but it can also possibly be resolved here unless all of the participants are so locked into their positions that there's no room to budge. With all respect to my colleague Nbound, I'm uncomfortable with this case moving in that direction so quickly without the participants being willing to dig into the sources raised, but not really discussed, at the article talk page. That discussion can, of course, also take place in the context of an RFC, but there seems to be a rush in that direction when it could have been or could be done before reaching that point and better honoring the principle of collaboration upon which Misplaced Pages is based. It is, of course, out of our hands here at DRN: if a RFC is filed, then this listing must be closed.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

TM makes some good points, and I support them -- Nbound (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing proposal: It would appear that productive discussion is proceeding at the article talk page. While Peterzor's removal should not necessarily cause this discussion to be closed, neither should this remain open if the remaining editors do not feel they need DRN's help at this time. Rather than just let this sit, I'm going to propose that this be closed without prejudice against refiling. Unless multiple requests that this remain open are made here by the participants by 14:00 May 30 (UTC), I or another volunteer will close this in that way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TransporterMan. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Adam Kokesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DA1 (talk · contribs)
• SPECIFICO (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Talk:Adam Kokesh#sources

The page in question Adam Kokesh. He is ethnically Jewish, religiously Atheist, and politically anti-Zionist.

He is an Anti-war activist, whose stance on Zionism plays a part in his role as such.

Given that wikipedia requires citations for claims, i sourced the only (blatantly clear) citation where Kokesh described himself as an Anti-Zionist in clear and simple terms. That is his Twitter account.

Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Misplaced Pages:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases.

Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have spoken in Talk Page. Disputing user responds with statements, but very little understanding sentiment.

How do you think we can help?

Disputing user in question (User:SPECIFICO) repeatedly reverts and removes the claim along with its citation, claiming non-permissibility of twitter as source as per Misplaced Pages:RS. Which is not true, as RS does allow it in various cases.

Disputing user does not budge. Merely says its not allowed. When someone makes a statement, and then period. It is hard to debate, since there is no debate.

Opening comments by SPECIFICO

I believe that I fully explained my concerns concerning RS and BLP on the article talk page. To facilitate the resolution of user:DA1's concerns, I suggest that DA1 specify here, in DR, the proposed text and the reference citations that would support its inclusion in the article so that we can have a clear discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh discussion

Note: DRN notice sent to SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) by me at 12:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC) -- Nbound

Is it possible to summarise (please, no more than a few lines worth at this stage), the points of each side so far? At face value, a self-published twitter feed meets WP:RS, unless there is reason to doubt it, or the article is relying upon the same twitter feed for the majority of its content. -- Nbound (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The tweet cited gave a link to an unintelligible youtube video which added later 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (correcting error, sorry!) did did not SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) show Kokesh stating "I am anti-Zionist." I am concerned that you refer to the policy in general, which is clear and undisputed, rather than the text, citation and behavior of DA1, which violate policy. Let's get a clear statment from DA1 of the text and the associated sources that he proposes to put in the article. I note with disappointment that after opening this DR thread, user:DA1 again added the unsourced content "anti-Zionist" to the article here: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

DA1, can you please, in good faith, refrain from editing the article while the discussion is in progress - Nbound (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

DA1 has again reinserted the non-RS text and I have reverted it per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note – Following a hacking incident in April, Twitter announced an increased security protocol for its' users. (See: .) So the question of "who" is posting any particular tweet from verified users should not be an issue (at least in the future). Also, please note there are 53 threads for "Twitter" on the WP:RSN. – S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) Relevance – the article talk page had very little discussion of Twitter & the discussion above concerned Twitter. My FYI note points out that the security of Twitter should not be an issue.14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of this to the matter under discussion here? SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, if you read the talk page, you'll see that twitter in general is not an issue in this discussion. The issue stated on the talk page is that the cited tweet did not contain a statement by Kokesh that supported the assertion in the disputed text. SPECIFICO talk 14:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a day or so behind on this article/talk page, but just as a general comment it would help A LOT if people would include 1) diffs of reverts and 2) links to twitter comment in question for editors entirely unfamiliar with the article. I myself will go back at some point today and see if I can figure out what is going on. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I did not know that this discussion had already commenced. I will have to apologize i actually reinstated the disputed statement before i could see this and make my reply here. I did not intend to abuse good faith, i am willing to nudge on that (if reverted edit).

The issue here is the use of twitter as a source, where subject (Adam Kokesh) has tweeted his solidarity with "Anti-zionism". His use of the phrase "my people" refers to his Jewish ethnic persuasion, since many Jews are Zionists. He however tends to the anti-Zionist persuasion. However, it seems from user SPECIFIO's reply here, that now the content within the source is being disputed and not the source itself. Well, in that case i must address the change in story. The content should not be disputed as the source is a verified account of Adam Kokesh. I would like to hear who disputes this. And, the "tweet" in question does state his solidarity with the Anti-Zionist persuasion. The added video link in the tweet is merely an added bonus (confirming his feelings), that being a video he made criticizing Israel. DA1 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not make a "change in story" and I request you strike your statement to that effect, which constitutes a WP:PA personal attack on me implies that I am not acting in good faith. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the tweet in discussion. It says: "Many of "my people" are anti-zionist. C'mon! Jews can be voluntarists too!" It is rather ambiguous since he's describing others and not being explicit about his own views. I'd like to see him make a clear statement, but this is not it. It just takes too much WP:Synthesis interpretation to say it means he himself is an anti-Zionist, though my personal guess he is (and of course that itself can have a very broad interpretation). He should write a detailed blog and resolve the issue :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

— In response to user S. Rich. Yes, i have indeed brought up the twitter sourcing question on the Talk page. You may have missed it, since i did not entitle it "twitter" but merely "source". Here is the section in question: . DA1 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

— To user SPECIFICO, i have not made any accusations against you. I don't know what to strike out. I'm sorry if you have been offended by my use of terminology, but i must make a complaint of my own that you are nitpicky in your stances, both in article, and in this discussion. Please let us not be distracted by these side issues. However, if you are concerned about my language of "change in story", i am willing to hear a third opinion if that does indeed qualify as a 'personal attack'.

— To user CarolmooreDC and everyone, the tweet in question is rather blunt. If we are to bring a question of "broad interpretation", then i would actually say that not using his statement as an affinity towards anti-zionism becomes the 'broad interpretation' (of trying not to include it). Even then so, let us consider the term "anti-zionist". If you support anti-zionism, you by default become an anti-zionist. It is a political stance, where you are either pro, con or neutral; Kokesh has expressed his "pro". DA1 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

When I said ambiguous I had another idea in mind so I'll spell it out. There is a "voluntaryist" middle ground: One can be for "Zionism" - the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - on a voluntary basis if it is on land voluntarily sold told to Jews. What the UN set up was hardly voluntary and 90%+ of the land owned by Jews (or the mostly the Jewish National Fund because it's afraid Jews would sell to Arabs) has been taken by force by Israels and so can hardly be said to be voluntary. Libertarians have written on the property rights issue with exactly this perspective and Kokesh has been known to have libertarian sympathies. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

— You're using 'broad interpretation' and bringing up ideas that Adam Kokesh has not used/said. I would follow your initial logic, and stick to the case at hand (Kokesh himself). Furthermore, the idea of Jewish settling on legally purchased land isn't the theme of "Zionism", which is the idea that the entire "Holy Land" should be settled by Jews (this is a separate debate, we best not distracted by).

— So going back to your initial point, lets assume that Kokesh has not directly addressed himself as an "anti-Zionist" but that he merely supports others (of "his people") who are. In that case, lets go inside the video he linked within that tweet. Proceed to the 1:04 mark, he criticizes Israeli actions towards Palestine (this is a key theme of anti-Zionist ideology); then lets proceed to the 1:11 mark, here he states "..Israeli Zionism. We can defeat this evil also". Here i must make the analogy, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it a duck?". If someone is clearly expressing anti-Zionist sentiment (and not any neutral/third-party sentiment), then he is an anti-Zionist. This combined with the Tweet remark itself should be conclusive. DA1 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We cant speculate beyond what has actually been said by Kokesh, despite his other affiliations. You can qualify the statement (if required) by inserting "according to his Twitter feed...", or "Kokesh claims...", or something to simillar effect. But anything beyond what is stated, could be considered WP:OR. -- Nbound (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Chinese Cultural Sphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sinocentrism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Durianlover1 (talk · contribs)
• Ross Monroe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Personal attack - user 'Ross Monroe' has personal disagreement with some of the edits and accused me as 'pro china'.

Some of the attacks this user have

The new map added by User:Durianlover1 has way too much of a pro-Chinese POV. I've reverted it back to the original. I highly doubt that all of Siberia, Central Asia, Nepal, and Southeast Asia are part of a single cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"More accurate"? Really? Do you have sources to back that up? please. Comparisons to Greater India are completely irrelevant. I'm not sure why you and Shrigley are bringing it up. I'm not trying to insult you, but we need sources here.--Ross Monroe (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

This user has strong "anti-china" point of view on the Chinese-related article. We should ensure objectivity on any article, regardless of political affiliation.

Opening comments by Ross Monroe

I did overreact and I have already apologized for that on the article talk page. But just look at the image to the right, the one that Durian is trying to add. Nearly half of Asia is labeled as part of China's cultural domain. It's not an ad hominem to say that this is a pro-China image. This image violates two policies, Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality and its policy on reliable sources. No reliable sources have been presented so far that proves that regions as disparate as Siberia, Nepal, and Kazakhstan are part of the same cultural sphere.--Ross Monroe (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Cultural Sphere, Sinocentrism discussion

Hi, I am a DRN volunteer. The image shown above doesnt appear to be based on a reliable source, and as such it could be considered WP:OR. While most images are excluded: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article." This article appears to illustrate an unpublished idea; or perhaps, a WP:FRINGE theory if only a few sources can be found. -- Nbound (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

Editor in question appears to have understood applicability of WP:NOTABILITY to his additions. I would suggest taking the matter further to the edit warring noticeboard (WP:ANEW), if the editwar resumes. -- Nbound (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Race and genetics

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Race and genetics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BlackHades (talk · contribs)
• Aprock (talk · contribs)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
• 84.61.181.253 (talk · contribs) (and other related dynamic IP addresses)

Dispute overview

The article Race and Genetics has a subsection entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." in which Lewontin's argument is that race has ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. Followed by support and criticism from others. It included criticism by Edwards, followed by Dawkins in which he agreed with Edwards' views against Lewontin. The text in question being:

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Aprock has removed Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin six times claiming cherry picking. This is despite the fact that in the cited source Dawkins repeatedly stated Lewontin is wrong. Aprock reasoned by quoting Dawkins that race is difficult to define, in between genetic variance between races is small, and that racial classification is informative about physical characteristics. None of which counters Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin.

The argument that in between genetic variance between races is small has been acknowledged by both Edwards and Dawkins, and was already clearly stated as such in the article. In regards to Aprock reasons related to physical characteristics, I tried to address this by adding Dawkins' example of why he disagreed with Lewontin using physical characteristics which Aprock still removed again.

Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin meets WP:V and is certainly highly relevant to a section entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism.” I tried to work with Aprock in editing Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin but it seems Aprock is only interested in removal of the text regardless of what form it is in. When Aprock was given the opportunity to edit Dawkins' views on Lewontin the way he would personally want it he refuses.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed in talk for months.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully help Aprock understand why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is noteworthy in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." and work toward putting the reference back in the article.

Opening comments by Aprock

There's not much to say. We have a clear case of cherry picking. Any sane reading of the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale clearly shows that Dawkins' views on race are that it is not a generically significant attribute. That Dawkins takes issue with a literal interpretation Lewontin's work is only significant when presented in the broader context of the chapter, a suggestion which has yet to be considered by BlackHades and various like minded editors. aprock (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Devil's Advocate

I have not participated much in this dispute, but I took the time to read through the chapter as Aprock suggested and I still have to disagree with his claims of "cherry-picking" and "misrepresentation" as I expected I would. Dawkins takes a rather nuanced position, questioning the significance of the criteria we use to distinguish organisms (in fact, the name of the chapter is a reference to how different species of grasshopper are distinguished based on what would seem to be an incredibly trivial difference), but he doesn't reject these classifications like Lewontin. His position is very much that race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context. Naturally, he does not assign it the same significance as early eugenicists and does not approve of it being used in a social or cultural context, but the subject of the article is "race and genetics" not "race and culture" where such a position would be relevant. His position is straightforward that Lewontin is mistaken in characterizing race as an attribute of "virtually" no genetic significance. Dawkins is a qualified academic on the subject human genetics and noting his evaluation of the dispute seems pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ArtifexMayhem

The entire Lewontin's argument and criticism is just a coat-rack for cherry-picked material. The proposed Dawkins addition is pov pushing by omission — the pov being, as stated above, that "...race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context".

As I previously stated on the talk page Dawkins makes a few other points:

1. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
2. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
3. Racial classification is informative about "no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness — nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
4. The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
5. Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

Neither Edwards or Dawkins make the claim that race is a genetically significant attribute. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 84.61.181.253

Talk:Race and genetics discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and Misplaced Pages:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reminders sent. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Beyonce Knowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Beyonce Knowles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JennKR (talk · contribs)
• Aichik (talk · contribs)
• 76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Aichik's edit (here) asserts that Knowles "copied liberally" from 3 European artists, citing a source for only 1 assertion. Not only do I think that this wording contravenes WP:NPOV, I see the information as wrongly placed in the "Public image" section. Here, relevant criticism of the BLP is made in line with her portrayal in the media; whereas the three instances refer to criticism for the artist's music videos. Two instances are already discussed on Misplaced Pages (Run The World (Girls)#Controversy and Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)#Controversy) in which a discussion of the instances is more informed and neutral. In both, the reports that she copied was made, but also the artist responded saying she viewed and was inspired by both pieces. The current "Public image" section asserts that other artists have copied Knowles, and although in part referring to public image, I think this should also be removed as it deviates from the purpose of the section; which is ultimately her public reception and not critique of her work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page and through user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Advice and mediation.

Opening comments by Aichik

Opening comments by 76.189.109.155

First, I have absolutely no interest in this DR discussion, nor do I really understand why it was started. It looks like Aichik, who I don't even know, hasn't edited the article in several days (although I have no idea, nor do I care, what their past involvement in it has been). My only purpose in commenting in the article's talk page discussion, as I made clear there, was to give my thoughts on whether Aichik's sources were reliable or not, since they were being scrutinized. I see that Aichik participated in that discussion prior to my comments, and hasn't made any changes to the article since then. So, again, I'm confused as to why this DR was started, instead of just continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. As the DRN instructions above say, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page...to work out the issues before coming to DRN". As I said in my final comment at the talk page, "If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where." In any case, I don't care one bit about this content or placement issue. So with that, I'm out of this. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles discussion

Treatment Advocacy_Center

No exhaustive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Page Plus_Cellular

No talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. See advice by Nbound, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TransporterMan: You're mistaken; I followed procedure : "If you have already tried to discuss this issue already and have received no response from others, you may go back to the previous page and file a request - but this must only be done if you have attempted to discuss the issue first." - from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request after I clicked 'Not Yet'. I don't mind THAT you closed it, but your reason is invalid. Will go to RPP.--Elvey (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Keith Johnson (author)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Keith Johnson (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subject matter of dispute)
• User talk:Reddogsix (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) (discussion, mostly in this talk page archive)

Users involved

• Reddogsix (talk · contribs)
• 94.173.203.170 (IP address of filing editor)

Dispute overview

I wish to bring to the attention of the WP community a dispute with one of its senior editors 'Reddogsix' over the notability (as used in its technical sense in WP). In essence the senior editor accepts the article - Keith Johnson is a writer, writing school science textbooks, principally about physics - but feels that the books titles themselves should not be listed as to quote the senior editor on his actions 'Removed fluff, this is not a resume' We seem to be in a position where we have a 'notable' article about an author who writes 'non notable' books.

We have had at least 8 exchanges, all of which can be found on the senior editors archive page, in which I have produce an increasing body of evidence culminating in references to 44 independent reviews of the books published in the Times Educational Supplement and school science journals.

I am looking for support that the books are 'notable' and the titles should be reintroduction into the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Bringing forward an increasing amount of evidence to support the 'notability' criterion Exchanges with Reddogsix

Post a note on the 'Notability' notice board on 24/05/13 no comment so far

How do you think we can help?

Assess the evidence produced that the works of Keith Johnson satisfy the notability tests of WK

Have the titles of his publications restored

Opening comments by Reddogsix

Keith Johnson (author) discussion

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though Reddogsix has not yet responded, I do want to make a couple of notes, however:

• This listing is not yet opened for discussion. The listing editor should refrain from making additional comments until after Reddogsix has made his opening statement, above.
• I have extensively reformatted and corrected this listing, including changing the listing to the listing editor's username rather than his IP address and correcting the name of the other party. I have also given notice to that party. To the listing editor: Since you have a username, please be sure to log in before editing; editing under your IP address now that you have a username can cause you to be accused of sockpuppetry.
• I would ordinarily close this listing as being pending at another venue (here), but the request at that noticeboard is almost certainly doomed because, despite the term being batted back and forth in the discussion at Reddogsix's talk page, this dispute actually has nothing to do with notability. Why? Because, per this policy notability has nothing to do with article content, but only with article existence. Moreover, per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lists of works:

  Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.

• Due to the just-quoted rule, I would also ordinary immediately close this as resolved in favor of the listing author, but I believe that Reddogsix may wish to clarify what he is trying to say in the discussion which has taken place so far. For that reason I am not going to do so for a couple of days. But I would particularly ask that if he does choose to give an opening statement here that he address the MOS section quoted above in addition to whatever else he wishes to say.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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