Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 15 January 2013

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

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.

Peter Proctor

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Peter Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Peter Proctor#References (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chantoke (talk · contribs)
• Nucleophilic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a physician here that also has an article about his work, Peter Proctor. He also sells hair loss products online at drproctor.com. Over the past several weeks, I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston. I asked for information on the article talk page, to which a user "Nucleophilic" responded. He has had a large role in writing the Peter Proctor article, but denies being the physician. He provided references that showed papers published by Proctor that had the addresses of the institutions on them. They did not list his faculty status. I referenced the alumni directory, the largest database of Baylor faculty in existence, and his name was not listed. I am extremely careful with my edits, so I also called the chair of the Department of Ophthalmology, which was one of the departments where Nucleophilic claimed Proctor was on faculty. Dr. Jones was unavailable when I called, but his senior secretary also did not recognize the name. Nucleophilic has re-entered the faculty information multiple times on the article, despite my removing it, and despite not addressing my concerns on the talk page. I feel like this is a case of Russell's teapot. The central issue is whether Proctor's mailing address listed on his publications qualifies him to be listed as faculty at the two institutions on his Misplaced Pages page. Because an individual can be listed on a paper for an address during medical school, residency, or fellowship, or even if volunteering in the lab for free, they do not satisfy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Especially for the page of a doctor selling online medications and practicing telemedicine, for which a website as large and influential as Misplaced Pages represents a major conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution pyramid, but have been receiving veiled ad hominem attacks from Nucleophilic on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside opinion. I am extremely careful with my edits. Also, personally I have not had experience disputing someone that may or may not be the subject of the article I am revising.

I just want to make sure I am not missing something or breaking proper etiquette.

Opening comments by Nucleophilic

Wow. Actually, I had walked away from this issue, pretty much figuring it was not worth contending, one way or another. Basically, I was just going on what the subject's published papers report. According to WP:reliable sources, these are the highest level of authority on wikipedia. This aside, intuitively contemporary papers seem the most reliable source for decades-old information.

Can't say how reliable the much later sources cited by the complainaint are, since I have not seen them, nor did he provide a link, etc.. Or even (IIRC) a formal citation. In contrast, I provided links to material directly listing the subject's professional address as such. Similarly, claiming to have talked to this or that person is prima facia WP:original research and not allowed.

That said, I wonder where this editor gets the "veiled threat", etc. Editor seems a little sensitive over minor legitimate differences of opinion. Things like this usually get resolved on the talk pages, not immediately brought here. Unfortunately, everybody seems to be taking a wikibreak for the holidays. As for complaintant's editing of management of baldness-- I do not understand his claims. Unfortunately, his manner of editing was hundreds of edits over a few days with few to no edit summaries or comments to the talk page. As well as throughly confusing me, this seems to be generating some concerns over there. Anyway, I suggest this matter be taken back to the talk page where it belongs. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant discussions on the Talk page, going back to at least 16 Dec 2012, and the issue is not yet resolved; so it is appropriate to solicit more input here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, there was one communication on Dec 16. But the real discussion did not start until Dec. 29, right over the holidays, when many editors take a break. This was followed almost immediately by chantoke transferring it here. Also, to descalate, I suggest "faculty" be changed to "faculty/staff" to reflect any uncertainty. As I noted, I was walking away from this matter until chantoke escalated it. Nucleophilic (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, incorrect. The discussion requesting his proper academic credentials has been at least since May of 2012, as in this request by editor Smokefoot. Chantoke (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Proctor discussion

Hello All, I am a volunteer for the Dispte Resolution project. I am placing a COI (Conflict of interest) investigation template on this page as that needs be sorted. Looks like the article has other issues such as a promotional tone and overall notability of the subject. A lot of careful work has to be done here -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

With due respect, you bear all the earmarks of a sock or meat puppet. You and chantoke have a similar edit history of editing pages of only local Indian interest, when there had been no such on the relevant page before or anything even close to it. What are the chances of this happening at random? Likewise, no prior edits on a subject, then suddenly show up in the middle of a dispute to "mediate". Perhaps you thought nobody would notice. Also see: wp:concensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As an editor of Peter Proctor, I concur with nucleophilic. It is not clear that Chantoke knows how wikipedia bio pages differ from regular articles. This article was also brought into mediation without giving any other editors a chance to provide input. Also, as nuclephilic notes on the article talk page, it mentions "hair loss" only once, and that in passing without mentioning the subject of the bio. If he is using this page to promote a business (or whatever), he is doing a very poor job of it. For now, I will pass over the issue of Wikishingaki as an unnecessary complication. Bandn (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is important because he sells medicine online. Reporting faculty positions at two prestigious institutions is something that would help sell product because it would enhance his reputation. Chantoke (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikishagnik: I too am a volunteer here at DRN. I notice you just added your name to the list of DRN volunteers two days ago. Assuming good faith, we can conclude that you acting with the best interests of WP here. On the other hand, since your impartiality has been called into question, it may be best for the integrity of the DRN process if you stepped aside participate simply as a normal editor, and let one of the other 40+ volunteers serve as the primary mediator for this case. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged, will defer to your judgement but I am sticking to my point -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - From the topmost opening statement, I take it that the primary issue is what sources are available to justify including the person in the Category:University of Texas Medical Branch faculty. Is that the only issue? or are there additional concerns about WP:PUFFERY and sourcing? Focusing on the faculty category: all inclusions in categories must be supported by sources, per WP:Verifiability. For facts in the body of the article, footnotes are often used to provide the sources; but even for categories (which may not be mentioned in the article body) sources must also be provided if requested. I take it that the only source provided so far is an email address at the university ... which doesn't quite demonstrate that the person is a member of the faculty. Nucleophilic: are you aware of any source that says "proctor is a member of the UTMB faculty"? --Noleander (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Response to comment by Noleander: The sentence that is being discussed is at (Link 1). It reads as follows:

"He has been on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch. He is engaged in drug research and development."

The three citations provided in support of this sentence by Nucleophilic at Talk:Peter Proctor are first, 1 second, 2 and third 3.

The references have several issues.

With regard to the first, it lists his address as being at the Department of Opthalmology, but does not list his specific affiliation with the institution. According to his self-published resume at Doximity (https://www.doximity.com/pub/peter-proctor-md) he was a "Research Instructor" at Baylor at that time.

I do not see where on the paper his specific affiliation is is indicated.

For example, you may have your address listed in a lab if you work there as an independent researcher, or volunteer, which is also very possible considering Dr. Proctor has been reported in the article as an independent researcher.

In the second link provided, he is not primary or last author, but third, which means he was not the primary researcher. Again, the address could have referred to him being a volunteer or independent researcher working with the lab.

The third link at 3 did not work.

The references are limited as they were published by Dr. Proctor himself.

Someone has stated that I do not seem to understand the concept of WP:BLP. It is true that I am a relative novitiate to biography articles so I will quote from the source to avoid my own potential misinterpretation. From Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources:

"Exercise caution in using primary sources."

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

While those articles certainly qualify as reliable sources in reflecting the content of his research, they do not specifically list a faculty appointment. Doximity is a self-entry website, and also does not qualify.

I also looked in the Baylor Alumni Directory which can be found online for current faculty at Alumni directory or of which a physical copy can be ordered at Alumni website, or by e-mailing Barbara Walker or Nyree Chanaba at alumni@bcm.edu.

Although the directory is very comprehensive, as an older clinical instructor, I acknowledge he could have been missed, although I do not believe this would be the norm as Baylor likely very actively seeks alumni donations.

Nucleophilic, looking at the article history, you appear to be its major author, so I would respectfully request you to supply something more reliable. I do not want to deny the good doctor his faculty history as he certainly is a figure in the history of redox research, and this should be fairly acknowledged if accurate. At the same time, the conflict of interest issues have been discussed above and on the talk page.

My opinion ultimately cannot be entirely objective, because there is not enough good evidence in one direction or the other. From Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

In this situation, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim in the setting of an encyclopedia article, particularly with regards to WP:BLP. I would not include the sentences about him being on faculty until references are provided that directly reflect this, and are not authored by the subject. I would not close the door on it, but I think it would be unwise to include something like a faculty appointment out there for a physician practicing telemedicine, without more explicit confirmation. Chantoke (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (Ramwithaxe; changed to avoid confusion in this discussion)

Comment For any concern about me being a sock puppet please refer me immediately to the Adminitrators Noticeboard. They will handle me accordingly. Coming back to the article, did you know that the explanation of the puzzling repeated failure in human trials of neuroprotective agents and antioxidants effective in animals by noting the uniquely high endogenous levels of the antioxidant neuroprotectant uric acid in humans is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself? It is also interesting to note that him being a part of a group that is credited with the fantastic supposition regarding diabetes, inflammation, and fibrosisan underlying common etiology involving electronically activated processes in such symptomology and is attributed to Dr Proctor - by Dr. Proctor himself - seven times to be exact. Did you know that according to the good doctor he has reported the conditional pro-oxidant properties of uric acid and further proposed that oxidative stress figures in the pathogenesis of hyperuricemic syndromes in general? And the list goes on. My point being that apart from Dr. Proctor no-one knows about these fantastic contributions to humanity (and Nucleophilic of course). And Nucleophilic, BTW for being close to the subject you dont have to be a blood relative. In fact by virtue of our discussion so far, we are close. If I was to compose a Misplaced Pages article about you before today, an article would have said Nucleophilic is a scolarly contributor to Misplaced Pages, but now I will be tempted to add ... who jumps to conclusions about editors being sock puppets based on the ethnicity of subject of the articles they contribute to. As if such editors cannot understand basic concepts like MOS and templates that apply to all Misplaced Pages articles. You see how NPOV can be compromied even with very little interaction? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I concur. I am not a sockpuppet or meat puppet, which I believe refers to a duplicate account. I would be happy to submit my IP address or whatever other information you need to verify this. Chantoke (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to continue to assume good faith. This matter has gone entirely too far for the issue involved. As I noted, I was walking away from it, when Chantoke filed this request for mediation, far too soon in the process, IMHO. Contrary to assurances, there was no real attempt to resolve the matter on the talk pages. Just a couple of exchanges and pow, here we are. Also, if he has any support for his accusations concerning me, let him present it. And no, I do not expect his and Wikishagnik's IP numbers will prove the same.

Likewise, no other editors were given the chance to give their input (it was over the holidays). Been here for six years and I have never seen anything like this. Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation. My suggestion is to take this back to the talk pages and let the process work it's way thru there. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I just noticed that another article editor,Bandn, is now posting both here and on the talk page. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please supply references, or concede that you do not have any. The issue has been on the talk page for several weeks. "Just a couple of exhanges and pow, here we are." and "Stated simply, there were no edit wars, or anything else to justify this tendentous escalation." Here is my first edit 1. Here is your edit removing my citation needed tags 2. This is me changing it back 3. This is you undoing my edit 4. This is me finally switching it back to how it appears currently 5. Literally we have gone back and forth 5 times, and we have been discussing this since December 16th.

Other users on the talk page have also been discussing this with you since May of 2012 Smokefoot Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no "accusations", please stop making this personal. I am only asking for quality references. If you can't provide any, and none are forthcoming, then by definition the process has already worked itself out and we can move on. Chantoke (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, please stop Misplaced Pages:Canvassing by recruiting editors of the page that favored your opinion in the past, as you did a few hours ago here and back in May of 2012 here for this previous talk page discussion. I have contacted all of the remaining past editors of the page as well, to make sure all opinions have a chance to be represented. Best, Chantoke (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you bring up the subject. It is not Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to notify past editors of a page who might have special knowledge. Rather than canvassing, I contacted one editor who might be able to clarify some of the issues. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond.

However, it is Misplaced Pages:Canvassing to bring in a new editor to support your point, as seems to be the case with Wikishagnik, who had no connection with the article at all or anything remotely related to it and whose record of edits resembles your own. Seen editors banned for no worse. As I noted, what are the chances that two editors with a history of editing wikipedia pages of only local Indian interest would show up on a page at exactly the same time? The mind boggles. Finally, note my suggestion to replace "faculty" with "faculty/staff" just to resolve any ambiguities and to conclude this matter. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum: though you claim to have notified "all of the remaining past editors of the page", this is not on their talk pages. Pehaps you can clarify this statement. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, incorrect again. You contacted one editor, Djem3, after the debate had started, because he had agreed with you in a past talk page discussion. You diid not contact any of the other editors that had contributed to the talk page. Those are the editors that I contacted, not everyone who had ever edited the article. Neither is mandatory, but you were selectively canvassing. Where did you get the idea, other than your circumstantial evidence, leading to false accusation, that I was related to Wikishagnik? Not all Indians are related, and not all people interested in India know each other. You are walking on very thin ice there. Chantoke (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Straw. I tried unsucessfully to contact drjem3 because he knows about the subject than I do and might be able to answer some of the questions. Did this right out in the open too. As for your sock or meat puppetry-- don't insult our intelligence. What are the chances that two editors with the same rather specific posting interests (obscure local indian subjects) should show up on the same completely-unrelated article at the same time, particularly when one of them has never posted to anything similar before. Likely the probability is in the millions, if not billions, to one. So this is either collusion, or a Guiness book of records coincidence. Which one seems more likely? Nice try though. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This dispute has gone on too long and I am losing sleep and developing a stomach ulcer from it. I would like to withdraw personally from dispute and defer to the opinion of the remaining DRN discussion participants regarding past faculty affiliations. Best, Chantoke (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree this has gone on too long. I concur with Nucleophilic's compromise proposal that "faculty" be replaced by "faculty or staff" or words to this effect. I have also removed the COI tag since it is not in contention here. Bandn (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment:Apparently too late, but just in case, I register my concurance with Nucleophilic and Bandn. Tempest in a tea-pot. Drjem3 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

________________________________________

Comment: Now that we have established good faith all around and agreed upon socket puppetry actions required, if any, can we focus on the content of this article (WP:FOC)? Can we get rid of the entirely self referenced content and wait for the Doctor to achieve more in life for which he gets duly recognized, which in turn can be quoted here from independent and neutral third party sources? -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Smokefoot experience I have repeatedly expressed grave concerns about the articles on Peter Proctor, his thesis advisor John McGinness (whose notability was also disputed and this article got off to a rocky start except for the efforts of Proctor), and many articles that cite their work. All of my efforts were thwarted by coordinated efforts of user:Nucleophilic, User:Drjem3, and Proctor himself. My concerns about the Peter Proctor article were expressed at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Peter_Proctor&oldid=495533611 under "#What is his current position and what are his awards" My view is that Proctor, Nucleophilic, and Drjem3 were propping up a reputation for Proctor, which lacks external support. He has no accolades, awards, editorships, lectures, appointments that in any way indicate even a modest level of external recognition. The article seemed problematic from the WP:COI perspective. In the end, I concluded that the article Peter Proctor was "lame" but lame biographies are an occassional artifact of Misplaced Pages. My greater concern was that these same editors have implicated Proctor and John McGinness as being some sort of scientific pioneers and innovators. Misplaced Pages articles related to polyacetylene (Nobel Prize stuff a few years back) and molecular electronics, cite the work of McGinness and Proctor. These articles are guarded and groomed by these threesome. I have taught these topics in a university and have never heard of these people. They are not mentioned in any textbooks. At the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners. I have edited a lot in Misplaced Pages - but my experience with Proctor and Nucleophilic and User:Drjem3 remains the absolute low point of otherwise satisfying work. I eventually removed everything related to Peter Proctor from my watchlist because the articles were obviously the personal domains of this threesome. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to Wikishagnik comment: I agree, viewing the dispute resolution guidelines discussed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution (pyramid), it is centrally important to not focus on the editors but the article. I agree with the recommendations given by Wikishagnik above. Chantoke (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have encountered many problems with articles related to Peter Proctor, which I have discussed in detail at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 24#Peter Proctor and conducting polymers. I tend to share the views of Smokefoot on these matters. In my opinion, Proctor and McGinness get far more coverage on Misplaced Pages than they deserve. --Ben (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Observation - In trying to summarize various discussions taking place above I note that a large part of the discussion centered on which discovery should be credited to whom and who was the first to find it etc. There was also a large discussion that centered on who deserved the Nobel Prize etc. All participants to this discussion are reminded about (WP:NOT#FORUM) and that specifically citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. Editors should have further stressed the need for NPOV by focusing on (WP:YESPOV) wich specifically states that in an article Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.. By ignoring Misplaced Pages Policy and engaging a debate on this topic editors turned this discussion into a debate and allowed it to spiral out of scope for article talk pages. Please remember that talk pages are meant to discuss the content of an article and not views of editors about the subject. Can we get some comments from Noleander at this point? -Wikishagnik (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources? - @Nucleophilic: you suggested using the term "faculty/staff" for the article. I didn't see the source which supported that ... could you again provide the source and a quote from the source which says "faculty/staff" or something similar? PS: To all: the DRN forum is limited to discussions of content only. Any discussions of behavior (e.g. canvassing, sockpuppetry, etc) are not permitted here. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply:The sources are the addresses provided in the subject's published papers. E.g, this publication and this list his address as "Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine". Similarly, this lists his address as UTMB Gslveston, Department of Pharmacology. BTW, according to pubmed, the subjects first papers were in 1970. e.g, this one , which also contains an address not listed in the bio. I posted this material on the relevant talk page in reply to an inquiry for sources. Exactly how they were to be incorporated was left for later. I also posted these links to the papers so they can be read directly. Doubtless, I can find more. In wp:reliable sources peer-reviewed published papers like these are at the top of the list.

True, as is custom in the sciences, these do not list the subject's exact position. BTW, "research instructor" is a faculty position at most institutions. Often, the first rung on the academic ladder. IIRC Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons allows the use of material like this. In any case, I suggest "faculty or staff" to get around any ambiguity. I was preparing to back off on this issue (which seems trivial) subject to input of other editors when Chantoke brought it over here, compelling me to respond. A reading of the interchange will show that I was trying to reply to Chantoke's questions as well I could. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic: I don't see anywhere in those sources that Proctor was faculty or staff. I think it would be a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the article to even imply that Proctor was on the faculty, which is a very significant position. Proctor has been working, according to the article, for decades in areas of high-profile research. If you cannot find one single source which says "Proctor is on the faculty/staff....", in plain words, that absence is very telling, and the info should be removed from the article. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, In academia, if somebody is not "faculty", they are "staff". Least that has always been my experience. Do you assert that he was not working at these institutions in the face of what the papers say? If he was, he was one or the other. You-all do what you want, pending other information. Which was what was happening when this "dispute" was brought here. Sheesh. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but in WP we do not use "my experience" as a source. From your failure to supply sources, I take it there is no source which says "Proctor was on the faculty (or staff) of ...". Since there is no source that says that, the material cannot be in the article. If Proctor is notable enough for a WP article, there should be some sources discussing his career. The lack of sources is significant. --Noleander (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotional? - Users Ben and Smokefoot (and others) above have suggested that a couple of editors have been engaging in improper promotion of Peter Proctor, which would be a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION policy. If the promotional efforts are disruptive, the best forum for addressing those is at WP:AN, or if a single editor is the culprit, at WP:RFCU. The DRN process focuses only on content issues (specific facts stated within articles) so this DRN case could be used to analyze individual sentences within an article. The WP:Notability guideline applies to entire articles, not specific sentences within articles; so if we assume that Peter Proctor meets WP notability guidelines, then the article can/should exist and the next step is simply to assess the accuracy of material within the article. If the article is overly detailed, then specific sentences/sections should be proposed for deletion (even if sourced) if they are non-encyclopedic. Of particular concern is the assertion by user Smokefoot: "at the same time, Proctor and Nucleophilic led a subtle effort to denigrate the achievements of people who are generally accepted as pioneers and innovators - such as the Nobel prize winners" ... adding puffery into Peter Proctor is one thing, but removing or distorting information in other articles is unacceptable. If anything like that has happened, talk page discussions, RfCs, and DRN cases can be used to remedy the situation. --Noleander (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as an editor that works in the area of chemistry, I have also come across the Peter Proctor-related edits. My perception agrees with those of Smokefoot and Benjah-bmm27: there appears to be a determined effort to promote Peter Proctor here on Misplaced Pages to a degree that far outweighs his actual contributions to science, presenting a misleading narrative to the reader. ChemNerd (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input. If there are any specific changes to Peter Proctor article you think should be made, please describe them here (with a rationale). As for the bigger issue about violations of WP:NOTPROMOTION, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they want to lodge complaints at WP:AN or WP:RFCU (again, WP:DRN is not the appropriate forum for promotional issues, because that is considered a behavior/conduct problem, and DRN is limited to content issues). --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, chantoke seems to have just changed his name to User talk:Lenny Kaufman. Unfortunately, this makes it that much harder to keep up with his edits. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic: Could you reply to my question above about 4 posts above under Sources? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Done above. Nucleophilic (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nucleophilic, you can check the contribs by going to Contributions under toolbox on the left. I guess you are confusing namespace change with sock puppetry and the former is allowed and does not change the stats of a user. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know the difference. It is just that User:Chantoke, now dubbed User talk:Lenny Kaufman, keeps doing things that make it difficult to track his posts. Deliberate? Beats me. Examples include hundreds of posts to single sites that fill up his edit list and using different names in his user links. It is true that the contribution list changes in accord with the name change, but other stuff stays with the old name. For an example or three, see this page. Now, he does a total namespace change. After a while, ya just lose track. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You do know that this is not the venue for conduct disputes right? Please stop making accusations about your perceptions in regard to what you think they are doing. Please address only the content dispute moving forward.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Response: This dispute is ridiculous and has gone on too long. I would like to withdraw it and close the discussion. Please let me know if this is alright. Thanks. Lenny Kaufman 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can withdraw at any time - participating in DRN is entirely voluntary. I think it would be best to leave the discussion open for a few more days to see if other uninvolved editors can provide additional insight (such as when User:Benjah-bmm27 and user Smokefoot provided input). Even after the DRN case is closed, relevant issues can still be discussed at the article talk page and other dispute resolution forums, such as WP:RFC. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to recuse myself from the discussion and will not be making further edits to the article. Lenny Kaufman 20:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should

1. Remove all content from the article which falls under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMOTIONAL, or
2. Keep the content but remove the references for now, OR
3. Keep the article as it is right now and allow it to mature?

Lets discuss this before we close this discussion. - Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest option 1, which may lead to the deletion of the article if no notable material remains. However, I anticipate it will be a time-consuming and painful process as there is likely to be strong disagreement between pro- and anti-Proctor editors. Some sort of arbitration might help. I am reluctant to get involved again because I find the pro-Proctor crowd aggressive in their editing tactics. --Ben (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Argument against Peter Proctor unrelated to the article or this DRN"Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)"

First no where has this been categorized by me or insinuated as exclusively an argument for or against Dr. Proctor. In fact what has been presented for consideration is specifically 3 questions above and none of them are for or against Dr. Proctor personally so that isn't even one of the questions under consideration.

This is simply unbiased evidence in and of itself, these are just facts. No where is it offered to support exclusively as an argument against Dr. Peter H.Proctor of Houston/surrounding area of Texas anymore then it is offered to support exclusively as an argument for Dr. Proctor's article continuing to exist.  

Characterizing it as exclusively an argument one way or the other would require a formal basis for such to be established.

" Where in the article does it say that Peter Proctor sells any such products? Are you hinting that Peter Proctor of this article and Peter Proctor you are talking about are the same?" Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)"

the portion of your concern if they are the same person is easily resolved by visiting this website that also comes up just above this wiki article when you google "Dr. Peter H. Proctor" http://www.drproctor.com/ the credential and information is one in the same on the site, and I can provide more verification as needed. It states he sells Androgenetic Alopecia(Hair loss) by the placement of such ads as stated in the opening here of this discussion. The ad included in the link clearly outlines the same individual in the same city with the same alleged qualifications as is under discussion. No one else is disputing it is the same person, least of which Dr. Proctor is not disputing such. quote from the opening to this discussion above by Chanote "I have been editing Androgenic alopecia and Management of baldness and have come across several hidden ads for his website drproctor.com, which I have removed. From there, I have begun to look at his biographical article, and found unreferenced claims about being on medical faculty at Baylor and UTMB Galveston."

-Even so, it does not matter. This DRN is about the content of the article. We are not interested in the conduct of Mr. Peter unlrelated to this article -Wikishagnik (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)-

"As regards the "article" it provides credibility for the sales of his products that is perhaps why the investment in editing by pro-Proctor and time investment here for financial return" as per what editor "Smokefoot" described in a publicly available conversation, for the sales of such snake oil products from the website I paraphrase that comes up with Wiki under google and links to his site that have been placed I think if correct were placed in references at Wiki according to Chanote's logs. This content is related to the conduct of Mr. Peter H. Proctor as it pertains to the article, because just as in a court of law "priors" matter, and what is good enough for a court of law is certainly good enough criteria for a dispute resolution process as far as admissibility. If determined that such Clinical Trial he alleges to have conducted never took place, this material would consist of priors to the actions of misleading the general public on Misplaced Pages through a concerted effort in regards to his academic faculty appointments, if so determined. Furthermore the article is a piece that has bestowed upon Mr. Peter Proctor and has added to his credibility to conduct such investigations as alleged in his online advertising and to be trusted as a source of medical knowledge to concoct such a formula for the general public with expertise. It relates as it perhaps may demonstrate a pattern of behavior of misleading the public.

Furthermore I make a motion for this & all evidence I have submitted to not be arbitrarily truncated under a banner & hidden from the viewing public eyes without consultation as you have done

Including the information on ingredients used that relate to his patents as listed in article and presented under the above near heading DRN (show) for Chemistry review.

If such claim is true, it is relevant to any article about Mr. Proctor and his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? This linked evidence perhaps could be considered as material evidence for consideration to be included in the decision making process here or for immediate inclusion in the public domain article as it stands now. This is an alleged "comprehensive 3 year clinical study" advertised with his picture from "Proctor Clinic" for a product he sells and/or sold allegedly called Proxidil. What proof is there that this study ever occurred as advertised? If such claim is true, it is relevant to his biographical information here if he conducted such a 3 year clinical study, don't you think? Please scroll down to near bottom to page 191 advertisement lower right at this link This relates to the "article" as it could pertain to his using Medical Faculty position on his resume for such a Clinical Trial http://books.google.ca/books?id=4ykEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false — Do the alleged chemical ingredients place the general public in harms way or are not allowed to be prescribed or sold at some point in time or are even in his products in any quantity as the labeling lists no amounts or did not produce the tremendous hair growth in this picture of his advertised page 342 http://books.google.ca/books?id=5isEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA342&dq=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

This link has most everything in easy access form for one to consider as well as email reply from Dr. Peter H. Proctor if you scroll down. http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/showthread.php/59371-Dr-Proctor-Snake-oil-n-since-(at-least)-1987/page6 I suggest everyone be careful in any editing out any of the information here as the entire dispute resolution and related material to Dr. Peter H. Proctor is under consideration for perhaps being submitted to relevant agencies for monitoring of the entire matter and all related matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I can give a technical answer to this query with appropriate Wiki Policies, what the above (unsigned) editor is trying to show is that there is deffinitely something fishy about Dr. Proctor per se. The ad says he is trying to sell something while the Misplaced Pages article does not say so, and both Dr. Proctors have worked in related fields. Yes, they are both from approximately the same area too. But, all we can do in this DRN is make changes to the article, we cannot initiate an RfD, now can we ask for Admin action against anybody and we have to assume good faith all around for all edits. So unknown editor what do you advise? Do we remove self referenced materials or just the references? Please understand that the first priority for all of us editors is in the editing of articles. We can only change content here, not the personalities -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Inhouse expert please understand we are discussing how to edit an article. We are not discussing about the subject. Its you who tried bringing in his past as an evidence of something. Do you advise removing your contribution so that we can get back to the original discussion (and for legal propreitary)? . And BTW, everything on Misplaced Pages is shared by commons license so anyone anywhere can investigate anything. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

as far as direction, certainly no self-references should be allowed with out substantial proof, beyond perhaps even a diploma, considering the orchestrated effort that has taken place prior to mislead. In regards to leaving it up, if Dr. Proctor can prove by third party assurances that he has done something notable, even if it is in area of hair loss by a certificate of analysis of his ingredients and clinical studies etc.. perhaps over the coming week we should await to see what input their is from him & editors to satisfy such.

Using the subject as a self-published source

From wp:biographies of living persons "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Minimally, this supports use of routine education and work history material like this on Doximity or this on Linkedin. Such material is hardly "unduly self-serving". Nucleophilic (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point, and even the article on Albert Einstein has Self referenced material but that article meets all criteria you have listed including the fifth point. The article on Peter Proctor relies heavily on such references (about 80% of the references are self published). What we need in this article are valid secondary and independent sources who can support the claims of the references. Only then can we honestly say that the article meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above hidden information is now fully addressed so as not to be hidden from public viewing?

"1. First Misplaced Pages allows material to be unsigned, so by definition that is not an argument to hide material from public view.

If I am required to sign it I will, just let me know.  

There are large sums of money riding on this Misplaced Pages article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit.

2. Fully a Picture presented as referenced by exhibit A, in this link picture front and back of main product Dr. Peter H. Proctor sells with alleged ingredients listed on the bottle. Please scroll down to picture by poster Jazzb http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=103317&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

3. Related directly to the article since Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. The entire basis of the article is to offer qualifications that give the Dr. Medical credibility by being allegedly faculty within a medical dept of a College. In addition the patents presented in the article are present on the bottle of the hair loss product the Dr. sells, so this aspect is relevant as that is what the patents are used for. http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=103317&STARTPAGE=4&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear " <real life picture of his bottles I know some parties may not want the validity of the products up for discussion as this is related to how the Dr. Proctor makes his bread and butter for the last few decades, however this is a public open source encyclopedia and the attached are all referenced by posts by posts by "pproctor" that he is listed as an expert on said site here with picture matching his ads earlier listed http://www.hairlosshelp.com/qna/Index.cfm said website has listed IP address available for consideration as that of Dr. Proctor's & contact information for contract with him & perhaps emails. Not to mention the bottle picture and label should be enough, I ask you to refute that this is the product of the gentleman in the article, as to this point you have not refuted it is not the same Dr. Proctor and the patents in the article are not one in the same with those on the bottle for Hair Loss product you offer.

Dr. Peter H. Proctor is proclaimed as the "Worlds Foremost Authority on Balding" here at The Life Extension Foundation in ads placed by businesses he has an interest in. http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/drprocadforf.html

"Dr. Peter Proctor, M.D., Ph.D. the world's foremost authority on hair loss and baldness, is the only hair treatment practitioner in the world who has developed unique, patented multi-ingredient hair formulas that address all the known factors in the balding process.

He is the author of over 30 scientific articles and book chapters, and holds several broad patents for hair loss treatment.

Dr. Proctor has a dermatology practice in Houston, Texas, where he specializes in the treatment of premature balding and age-related hair loss. Over the past 12 years, Dr. Proctor has successfully treated more than 3,500 people of all ages for hair loss and baldness."

Why Dr. Proctor Is Number One?

Dr. Proctor has already patented for his hair formulas "copperbinding peptides" that are virtually identical to the compounds in both Tricomin from Procyte and Pileil from Life Medical Sciences. Industry insiders have been buzzing about "miraculous" upcoming "baldness cures" from these companies over the past year and, as a result, the stock of both companies has risen considerably.

In Dr. Proctor's formulas, however, copperbinding peptides are only one component. His multi-modal approach has enabled him to achieve better hair growth results than anyone else.

In fact, Dr. Proctor is so far ahead in hair growth research that both the Upjohn Corporation and Unilever have had major European hair loss patents rejected because Dr. Proctor made the discoveries first.

How can a single physician be so far ahead of multi-billion dollar corporations?

One reason is that - in contrast to drug companies - private physicians can use any approved agent for any medically indicated purpose. As a result, they can easily explore, develop, and quickly refine new therapies. Many new therapies are developed by private physicians, scientists and laboratories, but usually they are sold to major pharmaceutical companies.

Another reason that Dr. Proctor has been able to single handedly develop effective hair regrowth products is that in addition to being a physician, he is also a pharmacologist who has been active in skin drug research for more than 25 years.

to not address that his patents in the "article" are for the purpose of balding is a mistake and to not include in an article on him about balding treatment that he is alleged to be the worlds foremost authority allegedly makes no sense whatsoever.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

The above and below entries are included here since Dr. Proctor has been most notable in the area of treating Androgenetic Alopecia with Novel ingredients in his practice and through worldwide sales of his products since at least 1987 or earlier, I offer the below for consideration of the editors for both reason to include or not to include such in his Misplaced Pages page or to consider not offering a Misplaced Pages page.

Request Dr. Peter Proctor or anyone with an understanding of chemistry to address the actual products the Dr. sells and if the known ingredients have any safety testing in humans and particular if there is any established efficacy or rationale for inclusion in treating Androgenetic Alopecia a medical condition of miniaturizing hair follicles. These are just some of the alleged ingredients on the bottle of Proxiphen and/or by the Dr. &/or associates claimed of the Dr. in public postings. The product line consists of a prescription product called Proxiphen and a non prescription version called Proxiphen-n. Both are alleged to contain the following ingredients. There is also a further shampoo based product called NANO, which includes NANO as listed below.

There is also a prescription strength version that includes to my understanding Phenytoin which I inquire what is the rationale and demonstrated safety and efficacy in any research for this topically in relation to Androgenetic Alopecia. If none, what is the individual rationale for it's inclusion please on your part Dr. Proctor.

1.The most important one Dr. says is "Nicotic acid n-oxide (NANO for short form)--..." ref.(1)

2. Carboxypyridine-N-Oxide -(CAS No. 2758-22-7) "This one has me puzzled. I checked the structure on the Belstein chemical database, but could not find anything other than that it's an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Drugs that act as nicotinic agonists have been used to treat nicotine addiction, Alzheimer's disease, and glaucoma. I don't know it's purpose is in this formula.Ref(2)"

3. PBN as well as its active hydrolysis products NtBHA/MNP * Ref. for it being in Dr. Proctors product yet not on label, poster pproctor verified by site as individual, middle and bottom http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=84063&enterthread=y where he is on file as an expert on the site along with other physicians

4. CU/ZN binding peptides

5. Superoxide dimutases

6. Ascorbates - antioxidant (Vitamin C)

7. Ascorbyl Palmitate -antioxidant (fat soluble Vitamin C ester)

8. Arginine- "one of the 20 common amino acids; precursor in the synthesis of nitric oxide (NO), a blood vessel dilator; hypothetically has activity similar to that of minoxidil due to K-channel opening.Ref.(3)"

9. BHT - synthetic antioxidant

10. TEMPOL and TEMPO ref. by poster pproctor verified by site as such http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=83173&highlight_key=y where he is registered and his IP as an expert in hair loss.

11. EDTA - "generally used as a scavenger of metal cations, particularly for toxic metals like mercury; I'm not entirely sure what it's doing in this formula; perhaps to sequester inorganic impurities Ref(4)"

Ref(1)(2)(3)(4) poster HairyKrishna poster Chemist Phd. student, currently specializing as an M.D.

"Request -Before this discussion closes with a note for possible WP:AN action recommendations and as nucleophilic has already been advised about WP:SOCKS and investigations can we get back to the discussion about what needs to be done about this article? Can Benjah-bmm27, Smokefoot, Amadscientist, Lenny_Kaufman and other editors please advise if we should Remove all content from the article which falls under WP:SELFPUB and WP:PROMOTIONAL, or Keep the content but remove the references for now, OR Keep the article as it is right now and allow it to mature? Lets discuss this before we close this discussion. - Wikishagnik (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)"

I would move that, unless something "so" notable can be found as to warrant a page devoted to Mr. Proctor, that such page be removed from Misplaced Pages promptly.

Definitely as earlier stated, option of allowing self reference due to the misleading prior behavior of Dr. Proctor or supporting Dr. Proctor group, should not be allowed and all references to claims including educational degrees should be fully supported by more then the common standard on Misplaced Pages or just a diploma any one could of had printed up back in the 70's before things were as computerized. This would be so all items are above and beyond reproach based on perhaps earlier misleading appointments on Faculty at not 1 but 2 Colleges. As it stands the educational qualifications of a Phd, pharmacology, biophysics, bio psychiatrist neuroscience and M.D. and world renowned accomplishments to boot for Dr. Proctor, seem like much for any one man, particularly one that has chosen to go into selling hair loss products with all of that training, so I suggest further verification on those as well beyond just a coherent flow of possible dates & assumptions.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Misplaced Pages and also the purpose of this article. let me remind you of the following

1. (WP:FANSITE) - Misplaced Pages is not meant to promote a persons opinion about the subject. Regarding the links you provided please read points 5. of the policy - Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services are not allowed. You have mentioned There are large sums of money riding on this Misplaced Pages article on Dr. Proctor for credibility for worldwide sales of his hair loss products and hair loss forumla patents to be presented here and as a Scientist of sorts, I do not want to be one of the victims that get in the way of that financial pursuit for business profit, so you need to understand that Wikipipedia is not a Soapbox and cannot be used for advertising products (WP:NOTADVERTISING), specifically Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. Further All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources - which you specifically refuse to address after repeated reminders. The references that you do provide are addressed at the beginning of this discussion
2. You also mention Dr. Peter H. Proctor has been most notably presented as an expert in Androgenetic Alopecia being placed as an expert on such on hairlosshelp.com as well as covered by the LifeExtension Foundation in decades past. This does not mean he is an expert, just proclaimed as such. You fail to understand (WP:GRAPEVINE) which clearly states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (I am getting to this at the end of the para); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.. Both you and Nuclephilic are missing the point about self published sources in BLP articles (WP:BLPSPS) specifically point 5. which states the article is not based primarily on such sources, both yours and content mentioned by Nucleophilic rely entirely on self published sources. The poicy (WP:SELFPUBLISH) clearly states that Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

The above two points cover the meat of your arguments. If you care to carefully read through all the policies that I have listed you will understand that all claims mentioned by you cannot be included in the article at all, unless they are qualified by neutral and independent sources. I suggest you read the section Writing style of BLP to understand all points about articles for Living People. -Wikishagnik (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pelarmian (talk · contribs)
• Boundarylayer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, BoundaryLayer wants to include a controversial claim that its symbol, the well known peace sign, was used by the Nazis. Following lengthy discussion with BoundaryLayer, I reported the existence of the claim, citing Time magazine and Ken Kolsbun's history of the peace sign.

BoundaryLayer says it's not enough to report the controversy, the claim must be included as a fact. A Third Opinion advised that the article should remain neutral about whether the Nazis used the symbol or not. BoundaryLayer ignored that advice and added an edit saying the symbol was similar to "the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII in usage from 1941 until the end of the war. A number of experts in symbolism have noted that the CND symbol is similar to the Algiz Tudesrune, originally a Nordic runic symbol, but in present day Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or the inverted life rune."

This is tendentious editing. It synthesises sources that don't actually say that the CND symbol is similar to a symbol used by the Nazis. "Experts in symbolism" is also a tendentious phrase.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion requested.

How do you think we can help?

Advise whether or not the article should endorse this claim and whether the controversy is significant enough even to be reported, and, if so, in what terms it should be reported.

Opening comments by Boundarylayer

Hello, I haven't been ignoring the debate, I've simply not logged into Wiki in a few days.

The dispute resolves over the fact that another user does, number one, not wish for readers to know what ominious symbol the republican paper was referring to, and number two, and most bizarrely, they do not wish for the opinions of experts in symbolism, nor the opinion of the former head of the CND herself, to be included in the article.

Linked below is the edit that was recently removed. None of the references provided are in dispute. I would be glad to discuss with the other user, or collaborate on an edit that they would feel appropriate, however, sadly, this does not appears to be something they wish to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&oldid=531168110#Organised_opposition_to_CND

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament discussion

Boundarylayer seems to be ignoring the discussion (see talk page of article), but I've left a comment on his talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Boundarylayer wants to insert into the CND article a statement saying that CND’s symbol was similar to “the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII” The claim is controversial and therefore needs particularly good references, which Boundarylayer does not provide. His edit synthesises sources to produce a statement that none of them makes and on the Talk page his lengthy justifications also contain synthesis and original research.

The source he cites for the “Algiz Tudesrune” is Carl J. Liungman’s Book of Symbols. What Liungman actually says is that the CND sign “can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune Y, turned upside down." He does not mention “the Algiz Tudesrune” and he does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division. (Liungman, by the way, has an amateur interest in semiotics, has not published in refereed journals and is not recognised as an "expert in symbolism" by anyone with academic credibility. His Book of Symbols appears to be vanity publishing.)

Boundarylayer cites Time magazine, which says of the peace sign, “some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet,” but it does not mention “a Nordic runic symbol” and it does not mention the 3rd Panzer Division.

Peggy Duff, the ex-general secretary of CND, is said to support this connection between CND and the Nazis, but in the citation given she does nothing of the kind. She does not say that the CND symbol was the “Algiz Tudesrune” or a “Nordic” runic symbol (she describes it merely as a “runic symbol”), she does not say that “in Germany and Austria it is called the Todesrune” and she does not say that it was “the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division.”

The controversial claims about the peace sign are already referred to in the article. This careless edit only adds Boundarylayer’s original research, which has nothing to do with the history of CND. Pelarmian (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I think Pelarmian is right about this. --BozMo talk 11:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH violation? - The primary article for discussing the peace symbol should be (and is) the Peace Sign article. That article already contains a mention of the purported similarity to a Nazi symbol. The article that is the subject of this DRN case is about the CND. The CND article should discuss how the CND participated in creating that symbol, but details about the history of the symbol should only be in the CND article if the sources mention the CND. I'm looking at the quotes from the sources above given by Pelarmian but I don't see a source that mentions both the CND and the Nazis. Connecting two sources together to cause the word "Nazi" to appear in the CND article is a violation of the WP:SYNTH policy. So, my question is: Is there a reliable source that explicitly mentions both the CND and the nazis? Absent that, the Nazi material should be removed from the CND article (but the readers can still learn about it by clicking on the Peace sign link). --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Inactivity: It's been six days since a DRN volunteer (Noleander (t c)) commented, and there have been no responses to their comment. If this is still an active dispute, please comment so we can get the discussion moving; otherwise, I'll close this discussion after 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

,

Failed. The parties involved have been unwilling to compromise in any fashion whatsoever rendering my mediation attempts impossible. I would recommend a formal mediation next, where a more experienced mediator can hopefully hammer out an agreement. Thanks to all involved for giving it a good faith effort, and good luck in resolving the dispute. Go Phightins! 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Babak, Babak Khorramdin

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Babak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Babak Khorramdin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Boboszky (talk · contribs)
• Espiral (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Misplaced Pages-Editor, I’m trying to resolve an issue I’m having with the user Espiral in regards to the articles Babak (given name) and Babak Khorramdin (both related to the same point “etymology” of the given name Babak). Based on the work of the renowned Iranologist Richard Frye available on Encyclopædia Iranica, I’ve edited both articles adding the fact that the given name Babak is the modern Persian form of the name Pāpak (or Pābag), which derived from Middle Persian. The link to the article can be found here http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/babak-3rd-cent-ruler I’ve therefore restructured the paragraph and removed the reference to “arabicised”. As per the Misplaced Pages article, Arabization refers to “a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture and Arab identity.”, which doesn’t apply since Babak (in it’s current form) is a Persian given name only in use in Iran and Azerbaijan and isn’t in use in any Arab country. Since my changes keep being removed by the user Espiral, who doesn't accept the given sources and since we unfortunately couldn’t come to any agreement via my talk page User talk:Boboszky I would highly appreciate your help to defuse the argument, in order to have objective content on both pages. Many thanks in advance. Boboszky (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We tried to come to an agreement via my talk page User talk:Boboszky

How do you think we can help?

With an unbiased approach on the matter and a detailed review of the given sources, I hope to clear the matter.

Opening comments by Espiral

Babak, Babak Khorramdin discussion

This request will be closed by a DRN volunteer as stale unless someone objects within the next 24 hours after the posting of this notice, and will be closed even then unless Espiral chooses to participate here. There's not much that we can do at DRN unless both parties to the dispute choose to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Cinema of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RTPking (talk · contribs)
• Vensatry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The mentioning of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as the Second largest Film industry in India is being disputed

RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please see the citations and proof presented by each side and decide who is right. RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Vensatry

The claim is highly subjective. Second by what means? No. of films produced, revenue or distribution? There are a lot of contradicting sources which say Tamil as well as Telugu to the second biggest in India. I came across a few sources claiming Tamil to be the second largest in India , and second in terms of revenue, distribution and star base. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide as many sources which state Telugu Cinema as Second,for instance

• www.georgetown.edu Paper Presented by S.V. Srinivas Ph.D in George Town University Washington D.C
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/ ------ Mentions Tamil third after Bollywood and Tollywood (Telugu cinema)

Most of these conclusions provided as citations which have been compiled by someone else's logic which may or may not be true, I suggest we disregard all these and each provide data backed by good Citations and based on which derive to logical conclusions. RTPking (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note (to DRN volunteers: I'm monitoring this matter as an admin, not an editor): Your suggestion is not allowed: we don't look at primary data and draw conclusions from it; rather, we go by what reliable sources say. As to the overall dispute, though, just because we have conflicting sources means we say nothing; rather, what we usually do is provide both sides of the story, with references, covering them fairly per WP:NPOV. Is there a way that the two of you could agree to this sort of set-up? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment about the two sources provided by User:RTPking: The first one is a paper presented by someone as a part of their research. I see no reputation of the person and he has never explained by what meas he claims the industry to be the second biggest. The BBC source is just a forum where many users have expressed their thoughts, lot of which were based on arguments from Misplaced Pages itself. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide as many good sources as you may need,

• http://ibnlive.in.com/news/telugu-industry-to-observe-shutdown-on-fri/112050-8-69.html
• http://www.thehindu.com/arts/cinema/telugu-film-industry-mou-with-motion-pictures-association-of-america/article3205612.ece

I hope the above sources would suffice.

I agree with User:Qwyrxian ; RTPking (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Vensatry please mention whether or not you agree with Qwyrxian and mention your reasons. RTPking (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh discussion

Mail Online

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mail Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jenova20 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)
• Dreamyshade (talk · contribs)
• Pscorp19 (talk · contribs)
• Christian1985 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the addition of 2-3 lines detailing a controversy of a newspaper accidentally publishing the wrong article. Readers noticed that not only was it the wrong verdict in a court case, but that the publisher had made fake quotes and a further claim of a suicide watch order being placed on one person. This is reliably cited and User:Collect keeps removing all mention to the actual controversy, leaving only a biased statement playing down the incident as something a few other publications did. Not only do i find this incredibly biased protectionism, but it also removes the controversy aimed at the Mail Online. Further he has accused me of BLP violations for restoring it once as "censorship" with no discussion before hand (even though there is one on the talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion going nowhere fast

How do you think we can help?

Deciding on appropriate wording of the section or clarifying if it should just state that there was a controversy, but nothing other rival publications didn't do (a biased and incorrect fact currently stated)

Opening comments by Collect

This is a "misuse of sources dispute" on two claims.

First is a claim whcih implies that the MO "published" an article with falsehoods therein, and did not remove it - where the "article" was visible online for all of a half hour and appears to have been a routine "placeholder" whose significance is being overstated by the wording of the claim made. I sought to have the claim represent what the source actually states as fact.

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, based on a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. The articles remained online until the announcememt of the reversal of the guilty verdict is a reasonable statement of the facts as presented in the sources given.

The second is a complete misuse of a source "Poynter" where I went to what the original source states.

In March 2012, Poynter published an article saying the MailOnline did not always attribute stories from other sources. Martin Clarke, editor of MailOnline said "We will soon be introducing features that will allow us to link easily and prominently to other sites when further recognition of source material is needed is a reasonable and proper statement of what the source actually states.

This is thus a dispute over how far a Misplaced Pages claim may misstate what a source says, and should be at WP:RS/N if the proponent really feels that the claim as that editor worded it is supportable by the source. Collect (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: The wrong article was online for all of 90 seconds according to strong reliable sources. The sources cited make clear that this was true of several newspapers, making that cavil errant. I do not think that using what the sources say is "biased" nor did I "remove criticism" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. A look at the talk page of the article suggests that there are a number of other editors involved in this dispute, most notably Dreamyshade, Pscorp19, and Christian1985 but there may be others as well. Is there some reason why they should not be included here and notified on their talk pages? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- but I suggest that the consensus on that article talk page makes this DRN moot. All editors but one agree on the wording I proposed as being neutral and BLP-compliant. Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was notified on my talk page, and it looks like those other two editors were notified as well. For context, I started looking at this article after seeing a request on WP:3O. I'm OK with Collect's changes. There's a larger disagreement on the talk page about how to cover critical material, but since the article now has attention from multiple editors, we can hopefully work it out via talk page discussion. If that doesn't seem to be working, it could be helpful to have a dispute resolution discussion about the larger disagreement, not just a couple details. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I posted to the talk page with a suggested revision to improve the clarity of the Knox sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The other editors were notified well before you posted TransportMan, i just didn't see them as essential to this as at the time it was a disagreement mainly between me and Collect over censorship of information and is now over protecting the Mail Online from any criticism at all, no matter how much coverage it gets or how significant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is evident - I try to maintain WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and get accused of "censorship" and "protecting the Mail OnLine from any criticism at all" which is a fatuous argument entirely. The "big issue" is how much weight to attach to a placeholder story accidentally released for 90 seconds online, and whether to say the MO "fabricated" the story in a lengthy paragraph. I suggest that a brief mention avoids UNDUE and POV issues. Jenova apparently feels that the claim of "fabrication" must be made in as lengthy manner a possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation, that's a crap argument from the Conservative wikiproject, which Lionelt used to use for the removal of information from Ex-gay articles, and which you are using to remove anything about a well sourced and reliably sourced criticism of the Mail Online making up a story in preparation and publishing it at the wrong verdict. This was caught and reported. Making your RS and BLP tags a smokescreen to remove the controversy, and instead wording the section to praise the Mail Online (That's the best one yet, while claiming the other wordings proposed are biased or undue weight).

The problem still persists between the me and Collect, but more opinions are welcome. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And i like your "lengthy paragraph" part, especially as my wording only adds 3 words to the one proposed by the third opinion (Dreamyshade) and your wording is longer than that!

My preferred wording:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".

Collect's:

• In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers accidentally released placeholder articles based on a possible guilty verdict in the Amanda Knox case. The Mail Online article was viewable for about 90 seconds, before being replaced with the article prepared for a "not guilty" verdict. The Mail OnLine apologized, and was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. The PCC said 'It also welcomed the swiftness of the newspaper's response and its decision to examine its procedures in light of the events.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenova20's preferred version looks much more balanced, staying much truer to the source. Collect's version misdirects the reader toward a positive spin, misinterpreting the sources which are mainly negative. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to actually obey WP:NPOV and my "version" on the talk page quotes the PCC directly -- which I suggest is a good way to avoid POV wording. That you see NPOV as "positive spin" I find quite amazing, as I did Jenova's overt claim that I have a COI on the talk page. The PCC said that the actions taken to prevent any recurrence were commendable, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I posted to the talk page: The thing I'm seeing is that the MailOnline article was unusual enough for the PCC to go through the process of upholding a complaint about it, unlike the errors published by the other newspapers. If the MailOnline had published a brief prepared story reporting on the guilty verdict as if it had happened, this wouldn't have been particularly notable; the problem was that the MailOnline included "colourful" speculative details as well. I think these links show that reliable sources didn't consider it routine. The PCC complaint was not heavy though, balancing a reprimand for the story and details with an acknowledgement of removing it quickly and apologizing, so I want to include it but not overstate it.

Looking at Jenova20's modification of my proposal, I believe saying "fictional" quotes isn't supported by the sources, and the added "fictional quotes" phrase is somewhat redundant with saying "reactions that had not taken place".

Thanks to Collect for writing a proposal too, since it's easier to discuss this with specifics instead of abstractions. Here's what I said on the talk page explaining that I prefer my proposal: I believe saying "accidentally" and "possible guilty verdict" also isn't quite supported by the sources; according to the "quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened" above, the articles were published on purpose since the newspapers thought a guilty verdict had happened - they were just mistakes. Is the term "set and hold" familiar to most UK readers, or do we need to define that if we use it? (I'm in the US and hadn't heard the term before looking at these sources.) It's also important to be clear that this event was about the appeal's upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict, not the original guilty verdict. I think we should also briefly summarize the PCC complaint instead of quoting part of it, to help with due weight.

Here's another attempt that tries to include the PCC complaint's positive elements:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

It's getting a little long, but we do have eight secondary sources to support it: . Dreamyshade (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, Collect and I agreed on this version, with changes from "temporarily" to "prematurely" and "prepared" to "standby":

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers prematurely published standby articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Jenova20, what do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and put that proposed version into the article. It's similar to the version Jenova20 preferred above, so hopefully this resolves the dispute. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any version which gives the excuse of the Mail Online but doesn't mention what the controversy was - creating fictional quotes and/or making up claims of Amanda on suicide watch. These are the issues people complained about, not that the wrong article was up for 90 seconds. What is the actual point of saying there was a complaint and the mail apologised when the reader can click the reference, see it, think "oh, that's quite bad", and wonder why Misplaced Pages instead reports on it as though it's a department of the Mail Online? Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the 90 second part is an excuse from the Mail Online, not a definite fact. It is actually disputed by a few commentators and so its inclusion is controversial if not explained.Source 1Source 2Source 3

And for anyone who disputes the made up quotes still:

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that "justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"

There's some quotes. Did they happen or were they made up? Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatculture also uses "personal blogs" per its solicitation for anyone to write for it. DigitalSpy says it was "swiftly deleted". WaPo says that an "Irish blogger" said it was online for some time - but bloggers != reliable sources. Thus you have precisely ZERO reliable sources for it being anything other than "swiftly deleted" (DigitalSpy). Thanks for showing the paucity of evidence that it was not removed swiftly. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's keep trying to figure out a compromise. Like I said on the talk page, the question is whether the quotes and suicide watch detail are remarkable/notable enough to qualify for weight in the article. The suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue.

The quotes part is disputed by the Mail, so we can't simply say "fictional quotes" - this Press Gazette article says "According to a Mail insider, the quotes from the prosecutor were obtained in advance", and this later Press Gazette article says "According to the PCC, in its defence the paper said that the quotes had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial 'to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected"".

That Washington Post source is helpful. How about "within minutes" instead of "within 90 seconds"? That's vague enough to cover both the Mail's claim and other people's claims. I also added "and quotes" since a number of the sources did comment specifically on the quotes:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within minutes and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions and quotes that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online's defence of 90 seconds is argued against by others. If we report their figure, then for balance we need that it is disputed. Here is the version as it currently stands after i added tro it and removed colourful defences of the Mail, which were just opinion, and not factual:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial prematurely. The articles reported an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge had finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources, and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of events and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error. The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific about which parts you considered not supported by the sources ("just opinion, and not factual")?

Your text of "MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources" is less concise than saying "MailOnline removed the article within minutes", and this text needs to be concise to maintain due weight.

Changing "prematurely published standby articles" to "published prepared articles" brings back the problems that Collect and I discussed on the talk page - see "All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another" and "use "prematurely" to indicate that the articles were released before the paper could actually know the verdict". Your edit summary said "less excuses for what it was", but the previous wording was more clear about what happened.

Changing "reporting of reactions" to "reporting of events and reactions" is confusing to me - my intent with saying "reactions" was to cover the reported events, quotes, and other details. Maybe that's not sufficiently clear? In any case, my suggestion above is to change this to "reporting of reactions and quotes" since the sources seem to agree that the quotes were important.

Adding "The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false." puts undue weight on that detail according to my review of the sources, as I've explained above.

Splitting the first sentence into two sentences is OK with me if other people think that makes it easier to read, although I liked the balance of having one sentence about the general situation and one sentence about the Mail-specific situation. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence seemed too big to comfortably read. It read like terms and conditions to me, which is why i tried to split it up and reword it. I like your "reporting of reactions and quotes" part though. Can you do a new wording below? And i considered the suicide claim significant enough to mention. It is mentioned in most sources, and even if only quoted in some, it is still one of the made up events of the case whch i included because it was part of the complaint. Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IOW, you wish to present a POV article here and not abide by WP:NPOV? Sorry -- you would need far more than a mere consensus for that, and you do not have anywhere near a consensus for the edits you wish. Cheers. DRN can not negate WP:NPOV ever, and it will not do so now. Collect (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a new version to offer yet - I think my latest proposal above still balances the specific concerns I've seen and the sources I've read. I agree that the sentences are a little long, but I haven't yet figured out a way to split the first one without causing even more awkwardness. Collect, any comments on the proposal from 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) above? For the 90 second thing, here's the relevant part of the Washington Post column: "A spokesperson for the Daily Mail told the Press Gazette that the publication will look into the incorrect story, which they said was live for 90 seconds, though some commenters claimed it was available online for much longer." They take the other claims seriously enough to mention them, which may justify being a little vague. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC accepted the 90 second figure. That someone uses a cached system to view an article does not bring the 90 seconds into question. On AOL, the cache was sometimes updated only after some hours, and such events should not be imputed in any way to the Mail Online. "Available online" != "not removed at the 90 second mark" if you talk to anyone in the online communication area at all. In fact, it can take Misplaced Pages itself more than 20 minutes to update its own caches of articles! (technical load issues are a primary cause). In short, where the MO make a statement and the PCC acceots that statement, it is UNDUE for us to use unnamed "commentators" without identifying them specifically. Cheers. - I had thought was had an agreement on the language for sure. Collect (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mail Online is not a reliable source Collect. It's not made clear if the PCC say 90 seconds, solely because that is the defense of the Mail, or if they actually investigated the time it was up. What is clear is that there are reliable sources disputing this time given by the Mail. That's controversial.

And your message on my talk page was not appropriate. Read the sources and you'll quickly see it's all there. No one is trying to challenge NPOV, it's just a fantasy you have created. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And since when can NPOV be used to remove half a debate? I notice Collect finds the Mail's claim of 90 seconds notable, but not that multiple other sources challenge that time...That's not NPOV at all...it's almost like it's a violation of NPOV...Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Try again -- YOU chose to use the PCC result as a source - and when one uses a source, one uses the entire source. And that particular source ... gives the 90 second claim. It is NPOV to use all of a source, it is POV to cherry-pick from the source. Do you see the difference? And I note that your "multiple sources" include one which says "swiftly" (DigitalSpy) and one which is a blog, and one which quotes an "Irish blogger". I would further note that GoogleNews etc. do not refresh their results every minute (heck, neither does Misplaced Pages!), and that the one DigitalSpy noted that the link from such a source led to a deadlink -- meaning that the 90 seconds used by the PCC is the only reliably sourced time we have at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. Read WP:Reliable and get back to us on that one Collect. It takes more than that to rule a source unreliable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jenova, the "within 90 seconds" is the claim made only by the MailOnline, and therefore it cannot be used as a fact. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you still want to claim there are no reliable sources? Another one. That's on top of the 3 from earlier. Thanks ツ Jenova20 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And the PCC report still stands as the definitive report which you specifically wished to use - so we get to use all of it. That Googlenews or the like link to a story which has been removed != any value at all. They frequently take a half hour to update their links. And your prior three sources had only one RS source say a blogger reported the story was live for a short while, while DigitalSpy (RS) stated "swiftly." Your blog source of course fails WP:RS. Now is there any value at all to your tendentiousnes on this? I would note your sources make naught of the "suicide watch" claim you sought to insert, or the multitude of trivia now found in that section including In April 2012, Salon magazine reported that MailOnline overhyped a story about Egyptian necrophilia law which Al-Arabiya took from a newspaper opinion column written by a dedicated Hosni Mubarak supporter. where there is no accusation the MO did anything wrong at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at "within 90 seconds" vs. "within minutes" as a question of finding the version that will cause less of an edit war. :) Can we take a quick survey of whether people would tolerate the article saying "within minutes"? Collect, can you provide details from the sources supporting that people's claims of longer availability (as noted in the Washington Post column) were caused by the article getting cached on other websites, so we can look at that in more detail? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC examined just about everything - and accepted the 90 seconds figure. I can assure you that Googlenews shows links which are "dead" on a common basis, and one of the articles cited stated that they followed a link from another page and found the actual article had been removed, though not removed from the referring site. As the only sources that it was not removed are bloggers, and we do not give weight to blogger claims as a rule, I suggest we stick with the PCC findings (including the fact they praised the Mail for its quick response - which they would not have done if they thought it was less than swift action). Collect (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad, Novi Kneževac, Srbobran, Temerin

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Novi Sad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Novi Kneževac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Srbobran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Temerin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thehoboclown (talk · contribs)
• Account2013 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.71.180 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs).

As pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a hasty move and eventually these categories were deleted.

I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013, which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles given in the list, however, just after a short while these were also removed.

There have been a discussion, which came to a conclusion that the other user, after dismissed a proposed category name change, now also want to remove the above given list from a number of articles as well, which appears to be a whitewashing for me.

Since every attempt to find a solution was stucked at a point, I came to this place to get the issue resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Brought to ANI, but it ended up nowhere.

How do you think we can help?

Declare whether adding the settlement list to the articles given in the list is appropriate.

Opening comments by Account2013

Opening comments by 79.175.95.39

Opening comments by 79.175.71.180

Novi Sad, Novi Kneževac, Srbobran, Temerin discussion

talk:Paul Krugman

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Deicas (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I call to your attention a discussion of a reverted edit that is occurring at The edit in question was reverted "... The trillion dollar coin is a joke (albeit with a serious point). Not suitable for inclusion." Un-revered with the reason "Krugman's not joking -- He describes the coin issuance as part of "most important fiscal policy debate of our lifetimes". Shouldn't we take him at his word?" And again reverted with the reason "oh for chrissake, he is too joking. He's using a joke to make a serious point. A point which has nothing to do with the existence of a trill $ coin but with the stupidity of the current budget process." Much subsequent discussion occurred on whether Dr. Krugman was "joking".

References

1. "Daily Mail inquiry into 'Knox guilty' blunder". PressGazette. 4 October 2011. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
2. Joel Gunter (4 October 2011). "Daily Mail criticised over Amanda Knox guilty story". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
3. Stuart Kemp (3 October 2011). "Amanda Knox Verdict: Daily Mail's Website Posts Wrong Decision". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 5 January 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
4. Greenslade, Roy (4 October 2011). "The Guardian on the false Mail Online Amanda Knox verdict". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/amanda-knox-initially-declared-guilty-by-daily-mail-the-sun/2011/10/04/gIQAXtrlKL_blog.html
6. http://whatculture.com/news/daily-mail-announce-amanda-knox-as-guilty-in-appeal.php
7. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a343745/daily-mail-launches-inquiry-into-guilty-amanda-knox-gaffe.html
8. "Mail Online censured over 'Amanda Knox guilty' story". Press Gazette. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
9. Rachel McAthy (12 December 2011). "PCC censures Mail Online for Knox verdict report". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
10. Andrew Beaujon (10 May 2012). "Daily Mail spanked for fabricating Amanda Knox story". Poynter. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
11. Roy Greenslade (9 December 2011). "Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict". Greensdale Blog. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 January 2013.
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Paul_Krugman&oldid=532478379#Endorsement_of_the_potential_issuance_of_a_trillion_dollar_coin
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532269950
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532271516
15. en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532290410

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion at Talk:Paul Krugman, added supporting citation.

How do you think we can help?

Would you(s) have a look at the talk page discussion and assess whether the "joking" claim has/has not been sustained?

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek

You know, whether or not Krugman is actually "joking" or "half-joking" or "using a joke to make a serious point" or "being serious about something that is absurd" or whatever, is completely beside the point and irrelevant. What matters is that:

1. Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point, misinforms the reader and is... I'm not sure how to put it politely, but it's someone basically unable to understand the actual gist of something beyond it's very literal meaning. It's as if I said "I'm feeling blue today" and someone responded with a straight face "Of course you do not feel blue, it is impossible to feel like a color and besides you are your usual pinkish color". At that point you start wondering about the person's competence.

2. Krugman has written more than 750 columns for NY Times. Let's generously assume that half of them are throw away columns or repetitive. That means that in 375 of them Krugman has supported some position or other, made some point or other, commented on one policy issue or another. And since he writes about the top economic issues of the day, pretty much all of these 375 supports or columns are going to be on something "notable". The deficit, the fed, taxes, trade, etc. And because is he is one of the most widely read columnists, there will be a lot of secondary sources in blogs and other venues about "what Krugman said about X". Still, that doesn't mean we need to include all 375 comments or columns in his article. That would be ridiculous. So what is needed here is a demonstration that THIS particular column is somehow unique, way way more important than others, will be talked about for years to come, and is thus especially worthy of inclusion. That has not been done.

More generally, arguing over this seems like a total waste of time, though unfortunately "wasting other people's time until they give up" is a standard POV pushing tactic on Misplaced Pages. So: yawn.Volunteer Marek 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

While the case has already opened, we limit opening comments to 2000. Please trim by 97 characters.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mangoe

Revised remarks: As I said in my original (slightly too long) response, the bias issues in this article go well beyond this one issue, and they cannot be solved by picking at the inclusion of any specific issue. The needs to make evident that criticism of Krugman is largely intradisciplinary rivalry between competing schools of economics, and the pretense that there is a consensus position against which his views can be judged needs to be abandoned. Therefore I don't think there is much point to participation in this DRV, because whatever we fix about this isn't really going to help the article much. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arzel

That Krugman was 'joking' is clearly the opinion of editors and not backed up by any sources. The issue itself has garnered press and the topic has its own article as well. I don't see how Krugman's view on the issue is irrelevant to his article and consider the 'joking' argument to be somewhat spurious. Arzel (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sphilbrick

• Oppose inclusion here I don't think Krugman's commentary on the coin belongs in the article. While there is enough coverage in RS to justify existence of Trillion dollar coin, and editors may or may not decide that Krugman's comments belong there, this "issue" is too minor for inclusion in the Krugman article. As someone else noted, we wouldn't list every single item that Krugman discusses in his regular column, and this one is far less significant than many items he discusses.
• Support coverage elsewhere Misplaced Pages's coverage of serious economic and financial issues is woefully bad. To the extent that coverage exists, it is stronger on populist claptrap, such as Trillion dollar coin. I do not argue against coverage of populist claptrap, for the same reason I don't try to fight the tides. But we don't have to let that inevitability pollute articles about serious economists, just because those serious economists sometimes venture into partisan rantings. By all means, there should be acknowledgement of that role, but that doesn't require discussion of every single utterance. There's a place for Krugman's commentary on the coin, it is Trillion dollar coin. Let's keep the article about the individual as a comprehensive biography, but not a play-by-play. Krugman's recent column on Japanese Policy is a perfect example. 100 years from now, historians will look at Japanese fiscal policy as far more important than the coin. In addition, this is Krugman's strength. His knowledge of this issue is why he has a Nobel prize. Yet Misplaced Pages barely covers Japanese fiscal policy at all, and I see no coverage of Krugman's latest thoughts on the subject. I grant that is a large hill to climb, but we don't have to make it worse by cluttering his article with discussion of his ruminations on the coin.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse this view This is almost exactly correct. I would endorse this (and Marek's above), as the correct view of this situation. LK (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

talk:Paul Krugman discussion

Hello, I'm Amadscientist, a volunteer here at DR/N. I will review the dispute and see if there is anthing new I can add. While I am reading through the dispute, if anyone feels they have a compromise, that everyone can live with please feel free to post it here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who initiated this dispute resolution. I have not participated in the dispute resolution process before, so I hope my unfamiliarty does not cause me the act improperly. The questions I ask below aren't, in a strict sense a suggested "compromise", but are clarifying questions.

To what extent is this a discussion of a specific edit, and the edit's removal claiming that Dr. Krugman is "joking"? This the specific issue that I had in mind when I filed the RfC.

To what extent is this discussion, as asserted by User:Mangoe, above, "he scope of conflict is wider than this single issue"? I infer, from User:Mangoe statements above, that he is making an unstated claim of

If this discussion touches on POV claims on an article-level there are other editors that should be invited to participate. And, in any case, I am not statisfied that I invited all potentially interested parties when I entered the RfC for this discussion. How should I proceed.? 11:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)

Per my questions, just above, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION? Is there someone authoritative involved with this RfC that can answer that question? Who? Or are we participants going to just go off arguing in multiple direction like we were back at ]? Is there an administrator to whom I should to directly via their talk page? Deicas (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of oversimplifying I think the dispute here is that Krugman's call to mint a trillion dollar coin looks outrageously gimmicky in the eyes of the general public but in the eyes of monetary economists his position on this issue isn't especially surprising or unsound. A decision based purely on the content dispute would support the side just concerned with the latter but arguably that wouldn't really answer those who are more concerned about the former, since they are concerned about the immediate takeaway for the typical reader. To be judged is whose responsibility it is to provide any necessary nuance. In my opinion those concerned about the optics of appearing unserious should be the ones to supply an adjustment since they are the ones who believe an adjustment is necessary but this is largely based on my view at least one of these editors is overly inclined to delete instead of adjust generally. Since a pure conflict dispute is typically beyond the scope of the dispute resolution process, I suggest the person adjudicating may wish to review the general Misplaced Pages behaviour of the disputants and first make a statement about that behaviour (if neither side is conducting themselves badly then an admonishment of the party who brought to dispute resolution something that shouldn't be expanded beyond RfC may be in order). A statement about how that would apply to the specific example would then follow.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what the dispute here involves exactly, but I'm a regular reader of Krugman's columns. My understanding of what he's written in the NYT is that while he considers the 'trillion dollar coin' option to be highly unusual and silly, he thinks that it would be worth pursuing if if a better solution doesn't eventuate given that a silly but effective option is better than what he sees as the disastrous alternative of defaulting on the national debt or the harmful alternative of further cutbacks to spending while the economy remains depressed (especially as he argues that its irresponsible/ethically dubious for Congress to not authorize raising the debt ceiling given that it's previously approved the levels of taxation and expenditure which will make increasing the debt ceiling necessary). My impression from the columns is that he's not joking, and regards the coin option as being legally, ethically and economically sensible if its necessary to avoid these alternatives. As such, it would be reasonable to say that he supports the option as one of the possible solutions, but such a statement would also need to explain his view (eg, that he sees it as a 'least worst' type option in certain circumstances rather than a good idea in its own right). This column sets out his views on the topic (the key passage appears to be "But wouldn’t the coin trick be undignified? Yes, it would — but better to look slightly silly than to let a financial and Constitutional crisis explode", and he then notes several other viable solutions). Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

At the moment there is overlapping discussion on "Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin" occuring both, here, at the RfC and at . Is there a way to persuade/compel all parties to confine the discussions to the RfC until the RfC is closed? Deicas (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Joking as a revision reason: I'm not clear if anyone is *still* citing "...joking..." as a legitimate reversion reason for removing Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin. If so, please *briefly* assert that claim below and I will attempt to address it. Deicas (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read the responses here, you will see that there are indeed editors citing "joking" or at least facetiousness on Krugman's part for disagreeing with the original edit. See my "'Krugman column is a WP:PRIMARY source" comment below for discussion on why the very fact that there is disagreement on what Krugman's real point is, and how he is making it, makes the original edit unacceptable. Zad68 20:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I assert that it is the consensus of, all participants in this RfC, that

1) All discussion bearing on or related to the "... joking ..." reversion reason is to henceforth occur in the "Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source" thread below and;

2) No further comments are to be inserted here. Deicas (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop trying to control this DRN case and let the volunteers do their job. Zad68 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we *please* have the "joking" discussion in *one* location? Please?

It is my assessment that the claim of "joking" has been entirely subsumed by the WP:PRIMARY source claim, see below, and further discussion of "joking" here only serves create noise and confusion. Deicas (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant: some of the discussion, above, suggests that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is insignificant and does not merit inclusion in the article. If that is your assessment the please say it *explicitly* and cite the applicable Misplaced Pages guideline for non-inclusion. Deicas (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

When Krugman writes a column(s), and then that column's contents/ideas receive many mentions, in many news sources, then that idea is significant in describing Krugman's actions as public intellectual. Deicas (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that most - hell, let's say ALL - of Krugman's columns are "significant". Wait, make that significant. Because, you know, they're in New York Times and all, and he writes about most important economic issues of the day. So... do we include all 750 of them in the Paul Krugman article? If no, then define "significant".Volunteer Marek 01:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the issue under discussion is Krugman's on-going endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin, which has run in at least 3 of Krugman's columns, and the response to same. We are not talking about a single column.

Look at the results of this Google news search: -- there are >1,000 hits on *news* sites. Please look at the number of news site related hits and then tell me that you are seriously asserting that Krugman's endorsement of the idea does not rise to the level of significance of inclusion in Paul Krugman. Are you confusing you personal assessment of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with your stated claim that's it's not significant? Deicas (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extend text describing Krugman's endorsement: Some of the discussion, above seems to be *not* related to removing Krugman's coin endorsement but instead addresses extending the text that describes Krugman's endorsement. Eg.: Note User:Volunteer_Marek above: "Putting in "Krugman supports the trillion dollar coin" into the article without explaining that this "support" is meant to highlight a problem with how fiscal policy is conducted in US completely misses the point ..."

If my reading of this part of the issue is correct, then the consensus solution would be: "1) Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin stays and; 2) The text describing Krugman's endorsement will be extended and edited until everyone is satisfied with the results. True? Deicas (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that any such consensus has been reached. Volunteer Marek and I have both argued strongly against inclusion. Arzel's position isn't perfectly clear, but I'm guessing support for inclusion. Mangoe supports inclusion, but I suggest the argument is flawed. If we do raw counts, which is not the way to judge consensus, it is two versus two, hardly consensus. If we judge strength of argument, well, I'm biased, because I'm one of the participants, so I like to see someone experienced in judging consensus to make the call. I'll be stunned if such a person concludes consensus in favor of inclusion in the Krugman article at this time. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what Sphilbrick said. My comment was conditional. IF we include the column THEN it should be described accurately. That doesn't mean that, at this point, I support including the column.Volunteer Marek 01:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: Your comment, just above, largely bears on "inclusion" of the Krugman quote. Would you please move those sections of your comment to the "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" thread above? Deicas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article-level POV problem: Some of the issues discussed above seem to address POV claims. Per User:Mangoe: "The scope of conflict is wider than this single issue. The root problem is that there are rival schools of economics ...". This issue would bear on not just the endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin but also the Robert Barro and Edward Prescott quotes, the Enron sector, and other items. If someone wants to make a POV claim then please make it *specifically*, cite the specific offending items, and justify why the inclusion/removal of these items has an POV effect on the article. Note that an individual edit can't be POV, in and of itself, but must have a POV effect on the entire article. Deicas (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to think I haven't been reading and looking at all this, but we are not pressed for time. I wanted to ask if the article might not have a few issues? Why is there a controversy section grouping POV bits altogether on a BLP? The Trillion dollar coin issue deserves a mention in my view as encyclopedic and having enough notability to mention but how it is mentioned needs to be reliably sourced and neutrally worded.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't follow that Krugman's views on the coin belong in the article simply because some reliable sources are talking about the coin. That's an argument in support of the existence of the Trillion dollar coin. It doesn't follow that every Tom, Dick and Harry who shares a thought about the issue should have it mentioned in the article about Tom, Dick or Harry. If someone wants to add Krugman's thoughts to that article, go for it. The subject under discussion is whether his views about the coin belong in the article about Krugman.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: If you are make an assertion that Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion dollar coin does not rise to a level of signifigance sufficent to merit inclusion in Paul Krugman then why are you not saying that in the 'Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant' thread just above? This thread addresses "Article-level POV problem". Deicas (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman's column is a WP:PRIMARY source: This dispute was started over the proposed addition to the article "U.S. economic policies" section the following content:

Krugman endorsed, in his New York Times column, the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin, by the US Treasury via a "legal loophole", as a means to "sidestep" the US debt ceiling.

Using Krugman's own statements from his own column is the use of a WP:PRIMARY source. The Misplaced Pages policy on the use primary sources is:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself

The placement of this quote in the article in the "U.S. economic policies" and especially the proposed interpretive summary of the column content ("Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...") is clearly disallowed by Misplaced Pages policy. The very fact that this DRN discussion exists is proof that the real meaning and intent of the primary source is too unclear on its face for it to be used this way. The solution is to instead use reliable secondary sources that interpret the meaning of the primary source. Note: I am not convinced either way that the mention of this subject in the BLP article is WP:UNDUE and I'm not commenting on that here, but it would be up to those arguing for its inclusion to come up with some way of assessing due weight, and that is usually done by examining the amount of coverage of this topic found in the reliable sources that cover the subject in general, and secondary or tertiary sources are usually used for this. Zad68 17:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

WP-PRIMARY#1: To what degree, above, is the assertion of WP-PRIMARY, a claim that Krugman's NY Times columns, and other writings, can't be cited in Paul Krugman. Is, indeed, User:Zad68, making this claim? Please expand.

WP-PRIMARY#2: To what degree, above, is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin..." does not clearly and correctly follow from the plain text of the cited Krugman columns? True?

WP-PRIMARY#3:To what degree, above is User:Zad68 making the claim that the text of the edit in dispute, "Krugman endorsed ... the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin...", is include-able only if a secondary source(s) confirming this interpretation?Deicas (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe all three of these questions were addressed in my original comment. It is now time for us to hear the outside opinions from others at the DRN. Zad68 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue is generating a good deal of coverage as can be seen by a simple search. I think the important aspect to note is that Krugman is the most notable economist to support such a measure. If anything, this issue is growing, and to say that it is undue weight or excessively minor to be included is somewhat hard to accept. It would appear that the major reasons for not including is the view that this is a stupid stunt or perhaps that it makes Krugman look like a wacko if he really believes it is a good idea. Regardless, it is something that Krugman is supporting (even if it is in response to something else he thinks is stupid). To not include a notible issue which, unlike most of Krugman's political rants over the past four years, is actually an economic issue for which he is supposed to be an expert about. To summarize the main reason against appears to be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel: as your comment, just above addresses "Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't significant" -- would you please move or add the comment to that section? Deicas (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the correct location. There really is no difference between the two. Krugman is the main notable pushing the TDC (joke or not). It should be mentioned in his article along with a link to the TDC article. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are making arguments which support the inclusion of Krugman's comments at trillion dollar coin not in Krugman's biography. I don't think anyone is arguing against that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In case that distinction isn't understood, look at the Krugman article itself. It contains an observation by Martin Wolf about Krugman. Someone obviously decided that such commentary was worthy of inclusion in the Krugman article. Yet it is not mentioned in the Martin Wolf article. There is a comment by Krugman about Wolf, but the Wolf comment was deemed to be relevant to the biography of Krugman, but not relevant to the biography of Wolf. In the same way, Krugman's comments about the coin are relevant to that article, but not to his biography. It isn't(yet) that big a deal. It would not be hard to list a dozen observation by Krugman that are more important to his bio, yet not mentioned. I've mentioned one, I'm sure there are more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another example. Michael Tomasky is quoted in the Krugman article, offering an opinion about Krugman. Yet that comment isn't in the Michael Tomasky biography. This is correct. It is a relevant observation about Krugman, and helps provide an understanding of the punditry's view of Krugman, but it isn't an important aspect of Tomasky's life.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there is a bunch of other crap that is not in there either, what does any of that have to do with this? I am sure you have read up on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. What, exactly, is your problem with including this information, which Krugman seems to have no problem talking about at length, and which has been a pretty big economic story. Seems that the one actual interesting economic policy that Krugman wishes to discuss over the past few years is to be ignored. Why is that? Arzel (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very familiar with OTHERCRAP... but that isn't my point, so I'll assume I didn't make my point clearly. I gave two examples where I think the handling was correct, not examples of mishandling. To say it more generically. Suppose we have an article on notable PersonX and notable SubjectY. If PersonX comments on SubjectY, we don't in general, conclude that the commentary belongs in both articles. In some cases we will have it in both, but in many cases, the comment by PersonX may be a relevant addition to the article about the subject, while not rising to the level that it is an important aspect of the life of PersonX. That is the most common case, and the case that, IMO, applies here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas. You have been making a number of requests to editors that make them (and me) feel you are attempting to direct the discussion. First, this is not a good way to get your point across. Second, this is not an RFC, this is a DR/N filing. Anyone may help resolve the dispute but we ask that we limit the mediation and administration of the filing to one of the listed volunteers. You can help by collaborating with the editors to find common ground.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of discussion

The scope of the discussion is limited to the issues related to the dispute and all normal policies and guidelines, with an emphasis on BLP policy. Right now we have a locked article: Paul Krugman and will remain locked until, either the disputes are settled or the time runs out of the clock. But its a long lock. January 20, 2013.

The issues are collaboration, communication and acceptance. To collaborate, the involved editors have to go in to this knowing that everyone may have to accept some amount of the other participants ideas to find some common ground and move forward. If content is the main issue, we should use communication in a way that is brief and informative. Don't talk past each other or at each other.

The main issue is whether or not to include information about the coin. First, lets remember a few unquestionable fact. This is a concept, not an actual coin. It would be a huge coin if it was. This is polictical, economic theory, that simply states the President of the United States could fund the government around the approval of congress using this particular "loophole". This has notability to be in the Krugman article and is neutral information in regards to the figure. The context to Krugman is firm and it can be verified that he made comments on the concept. I believe an issue is editors being able to live with that and how does it get added in prose. But the overall issue is NPOV and discussion problems with centering too much on each other and picking apart each argument back and forth. Stop discussing eacj other. Discuss the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There have been a number of NPOV/POV claims, bearing on an article-level Paul Krugman issue, asserted above and on . These NPOV/POV claims effect not just inclusion/removal of the the Trillion Dollar Coin edit but also the inclusion/removal of other items (e.g. the Enron section, the Gary Becker quote, statements by Barro and Prescott, and the comments of the President of Estonia).

If the violation of POV claim is sustained, then most of the issues, above, go away. If the violation of POV claim is rejected, then disposition of individual edit issues can be resolved quicker, quieter, faster, with less dispute.

Resolving the NPOV/POV claims, and the correct treatment of same, is a prerequisite to arriving at a specific disposition of the Trillion Dollar Coin edit and a number of other active disputes. These are disputes that should/must be resolved prior to the scheduled un-protecting of Paul Krugman on 20 January.

I remind all participants, in this discussion, per WP:NPOV, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". Deicas (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I have recommended, just above, that the current RfC be put in a hold state and a new RfC - "Resolve claims that Paul Krugman has a POV/NPOV problem" be created, and resolved, prior to continuing with the current RfC? Deicas (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You should be brief in you comments. Brevity is more important in disputes than at any other time. What can you live with Deicas? The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If NPOV/POV disputes aren't within the scope of this RfC, then would someone (who) please make an authoritative statement to that effect? Deicas (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Content disputes are resolved here and all findings are informal. Conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am unclear as to User:Amadscientist's meaning just above. Are POV claims *within*, or *not within*, the scope of this RfC? Is a claim of POV a "onduct disputes" issue? Would he please make clear declarative sentences resolving these questions, eg. "POV claims are not within scope of this RfC.", "POV claims are conduct disputes can be submitted to AN/I". Deicas (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please direct all questions regarding RFC policy to the RFC talkpage or Dispute Resolution talkpage. If you have questions about the DR/N process they can be asked on our talkpage. Please keep this discussion to the dispute at hand. If you continue to disrupt this DR/N case you will be asked to refrain from further comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The information itself and its inclusion is a matter a simple straw poll consensus can decide. What do editors think? Is basic information about Paul Krugman commenting on the Trillion Dollar Coin notable enough for inclusion?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editors may add an oppose or support !Vote.

• Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. LK (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. It's surprising that although the heart of this dispute seems to be WP:UNDUE nobody has brought forward any numbers to argue it, so I did my own Google Scholar searching and did not find the numbers support the mention of it in this biography, 530 mentions out of 40,700. At Trillion dollar coin, there does seem enough support for a listing of Krugman's name as one of those who has commented on the idea (and it's already in the article). It's possible that the coin idea, which appears to me to be nothing more than a thought experiment, could catch on, and then we'd have to revisit this decision at that time. Zad68 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Paul Krugman. It's *so* prominent Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage". Support inclusion of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin in Trillion Dollar Coin. What difference that support makes I'm not sure, Krugman's endorsement of the trillion dollar coin is *already in* Trillion Dollar Coin Deicas (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. Reserve the right to change my mind if situation changes or more information becomes available, per User:JMKeynes. Volunteer Marek 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, Support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin. (same Keynes reservation as Volunteer Marek, which I had to remove from my opening statement for space limitations)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman, Support inclusion in Trillion dollar coin, with the reservation that this can change depending on what happens in this next couple of months. FurrySings (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in both. This odd whitewash of information is quite strange since Krugman himself has made quite the big deal of it as of late. I am still not sure I understand the objection. Arzel (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're describing the questioning of the inclusion of this on WP:UNDUE grounds as "whitewashing" because it is in no way negative material about Krugman. You yourself have almost repeated the concerns the "oppose" !voters have been raising when you say "has made quite the big deal of it as of late" (emphasis mine)--remember that this article Paul Krugman is a very general and broad biography spanning his whole life and career. Krugman has said lots of things about lots of different economic concepts over his career and there's nothing here to make us think his recent thoughts about the trillion-dollar coin idea are any more notable relative to anything else he's said or written. Zad68 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly why I am very curious to the strong attempt to keep it out of the article. From an economic theory policy, this is a very interesting aspect of thought. Much has already been written about it. Why is it unsuitable for his article? How is it undue to mention something that is probably one of the things that should be mentioned about Krugmas views on economic policy? The only conclusion I can determine is that some think it is a stupid joke and therefore unworthy of the Krugman, thus the whitewash. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're still not demonstrating a perspective that is in line with arguing for inclusion in Paul Krugman and instead are arguing for inclusion at Trillion dollar coin (where it already is). See WP:UNDUE for guidance on how to determine whether something like this should be included, and keep in mind that this article is a general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas. Zad68 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Zad68, just above, asserts that Paul Krugman is a "... general biography about Paul Krugman the person, and it is not an article about the trillion dollar coin specifically or even just Krugman's economic ideas".

1) The notion that Paul Krugman isn't about and, by implication, shouldn't include "Krugman's economic ideas" is risible. And silly.

1a) Absent his economic idea, Paul Krugman probably wouldn't meet the WP:NOTE criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

2) If "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman then is User:Zad68 suggesting that we remove mention of "Krugman's economic ideas" from the article? E.g. are sections "New trade theory", "New economic geography", "International finance", "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy", "Free trade") to be removed?

3) I'm not aware that anyone has suggested, as implied above, that an extensive discussion of the trillion dollar coin should be added to Paul Krugman. Could someone please point to this suggestion, if it exists?

4) The proposed addition is: mention of Krugman's endorsement of the idea and; a brief description of his reason for same. Deicas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, Zad68 never said "Krugman's economic ideas" aren't proper to include in Paul Krugman. Of course they are. Please read more carefully, so you can contribute to the signal, not the noise.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to expand on point (2), where is Misplaced Pages most likely to have a puffed up, slanted bio? Answer: for someone who has a large fan club. How does the subject's popularity penetrate into the article? By polling the general editing population, in which Krugman enthusiasts are even more overrepresented than the general population by virtue of the number of liberal yuppies around here. Anytime someone cannot come up with a substantive reason for excluding something, there's the reach for Misplaced Pages:UNDUE weight. That policy says that views should be identified "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" but that of course allows for all sorts of stalling by either changing the scope of what constitutes "published, reliable sources" to whatever serves one's purposes or, even more commonly, combining it with the burden of proof on the party supporting inclusion argument to create a near impossible evidentiary burden for inclusion, since one can't just point to the reliable sources but has to chronicle the entire inventory of reliably sourced material about the subject on all topics and then sort all of that by topic so that one gets comparative weights. If we apply this tactic to the attention the article currently places on Krugman's opinion about the GOP and the "Southern Strategy" (something that has nothing to do with economics, Krugman's area of expertise) would we have Republicans and race relations discussed not just once but twice, with the second time getting its own section? Allowing this sort of relative weighting within the article argument to support the inclusion of something ought to be worth something since the idealized relative weighting within all the external sources standard is extremely impractical in the context of a dispute. Abuse of the "burden of proof for inclusion" principle could be minimized by requiring the party claiming "two wrongs don't make a right" to correct one of the two wrongs before making an issue out of the second.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in Paul Krugman. Besides the fact that Google Scholar is going to be light on 2013 topics since it takes time for work to go from writing to publication in the sources caught by Google Scholar, we'd be deleting the bios for most of the Congressmen if Google Scholar is the standard since few politicians are references for "scholars." The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally, and on that point this has not just come up in the tabloids. While I have no particular objection to including a mention of Krugman's views in Trillion dollar coin, the topic of that article is not Krugman's views but the legal, political, and economic consequences of minting that coin. Minting the coin would be very similar to quantitative easing which rightly or wrongly is supported by a great many credentialed economists, not just Krugman. SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Misplaced Pages that this falsehood should make its way into this encyclopedia because popular opinion votes it in. The people who have been dismissing the coin as so much claptrap have almost entirely been journalists and bloggers talking about the politics and optics of the coin as opposed anyone who has come up with a serious argument about the economic consequences. You don't have to read very far between the lines of SPhilbrick's claims to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because it makes him look less than "serious." In fact Krugman would look less serious if he failed to endorse the coin on economic grounds since it would amount to flip flopping on a lot of the policy prescriptions he's advocated previously. Editor Marek went and deleted the discussion of the economics of the coin I wrote at Trillion_dollar_coin#Inflation_Risks instead of contributing to that discussion so I have since rewritten it in as indisputable fashion that I can. I challenge Marek, SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" to identify what's wrong with that paragraph in Trillion Dollar Coin because that paragraph is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that the coin is a gimmick not to be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is adding more than a trillion to its balance sheet in 2013 ANYWAY. It could substitute those plans with the coin and realize the objective of stimulating spending in the economy even more directly than through its current plan which relies on the indirect mechanism of incentivizing lending.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it would have been nice if you had made your argument by only referring to Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines, and without assuming bad faith of your fellow editors, making personal attacks, and engaging in original research. Zad68 21:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a start, please read more carefully. You said, in part SPhilbrick, and the rest claiming the coin is just a "joke" . I have not said it is a joke. I have said more than once that debating that point is a distraction.
• As for ... to see that SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because... I urge you to avoid assigning motives. Please address issues, not motivations. Especially as you aren't very good at it. (My personal hope is that it is included, but I think that would be bad policy.)
• This: SPhilbrick's claim that the coin is "populist claptrap" is simply false, and it's a classic example of what's wrong with Misplaced Pages is way off-topic. If you want to have a debate about what's wrong with Misplaced Pages, I'm there, but not here.
• You said The appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources. In a word, no. Reliable sources are necessary but not sufficient.
• That doesn't leave much of a policy reason for inclusion. Can you reiterate, using policy, why we should cover it twice? Are you seriously arguing this minor incident is one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career? That would be sad if true, but it isn't true.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What I said was the "appropriate criterion for notability is reliable sources more generally." This is not just splitting semantic hairs because truncating your quote of me turns my relative, contrasting statement into an absolute, isolated one. An entirely different thing. Neither did I say that you've claimed "it is a joke" but I did lump you together with those who did because "joke" versus "partisan rant" really is just the same point, which if it's germane must be that Krugman on the coin is not "serious". If that's not the point then just what is the point? What else are we to make of your use of "serious" if not to draw a contrast? The "motive" for claiming undue weight is, in fact, the very issue at hand, because nobody who believes it isn't undue is going to be convinced it is undue just because someone else keeps restating that it's undue. The argument will just go around in circles until the motivation is spelled out. There isn't "much of a policy reason for inclusion" of "Krugman reports that he is a distant relative of conservative journalist David Frum" in the article yet you aren't disputing that, you are disputing this. Why are you not demanding that Krugman's "distant" relation to Frum be deleted on the grounds that it does not constitute "one of the more important aspects of Krugman's career?" The answer to that goes to the heart of this issue, which is whether to mention the coin (once, not "twice"). Last I checked, Krugman's relationship to Frum was not headline news. Meanwhile, ABC News finds noteworthy not just Krugman's position on the coin, but that he criticized Jon Stewart for not taking it seriously: ""Obviously neither he nor his staff did even five minutes of looking at the financial blogs. Lots of people think it’s a bad idea. Lots of people think it’s a good idea. But it’s not just, ‘Oh, those idiots.’"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of_file_systems

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Comparison of file systems (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Atario (talk · contribs)
• Bienengasse (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Bienengasse has made many changes to people's comments on this talk page without anyone's permission to do so.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I reverted with a brief warning in the edit summary field; we discussed the issue on my user talk page; he reverted back to his edited version; I came here for help to avoid a revert-war.

How do you think we can help?

As this is my first time requesting this sort of help, you're probably more familiar with what can be done than I am. The fact that it's not in an article but a talk page for an article complicates things; I imagine you can't just protect a talk page willy-nilly. Ideas needed!

Opening comments by Bienengasse

Comments from my side can be found on the Talk of Atario. Modifications were done carefully with respect to the contributors and intention of Misplaced Pages.
Atario arguments with a wordly interpretation of the guidelines, I refer to a corresponding and logical interpretation.--Bienengasse (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

Old threads are archived, not removed. I archived a few to Talk:Comparison of file systems/Archive 1, and I added an archivebox to the talk page. Have a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. (removing old comments without archiving them will be considered vandalism, like FreeRangeFrog did. You can only do that at your own user talk page.).

Questions and requests are not archived as soon as they are answered, they are allowed to age until they are old enough to archive. Some editors are away from the articles for weeks or months, by looking at the talk page they can see what has been happening, and they can provide further answers or fixes.

Now, about "removed disrespectful comments about Reiser". Those are a lot of bad taste jokes about a living person, and none of them relates in any way to improving the encyclopedia. WP:BLP asks us to be careful about the privacy of living individuals, so I have replaced the jokes with a note. I find that replacing with an explanatory note works better than blanking the section. People will see the note and they won't start new sections with the same type of comments.

Sorry, if I have been too forward. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of_file_systems discussion

• Note I have reverted Bienengasse (talk · contribs) last edit to Talk:Comparison of file systems, and left a warning in his talk page. This is not a content dispute, it's disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. That is not what we do with article talk pages. If this behavior continues, I'll file a report at the administrator's noticeboard requesting his account be blocked. §FreeRangeFrog 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Jamrud

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Battle of Jamrud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
• Devanampriya (talk · contribs)
• Takabeg (talk · contribs)
• Theman244 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The result of the battle is the topic of concern. I have presented multiple university sources that state three different results: Indecisive, Afghan victory and Sikh victory.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

• Talk page(blatant sourcing, quoting)
• Asking for advice on Project Military History
• Taking suggestions from Project Military History and copy/pasted them to Battle of Jamrud talk page

How do you think we can help?

We need a clarification to determine if we need to use what ALL university sources state about the result of a battle or to ignore specific university sources.

Opening comments by Devanampriya

Opening comments by Takabeg

Opening comments by Theman244

Battle of Jamrud discussion

Henry K. Van Rensselaer and Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Henry K. Van Rensselaer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JGVR (talk · contribs)
• Kraxler (talk · contribs)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The initial by Kraxler's uncontrollable urge to rename articles to fit their world view when it comes to Capitalizing the Dutch Prefix "van" in a surname within a mere 4 days of an article being started I get stuff like: 16:23, 24 December 2012‎ Kraxler (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,341 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Kraxler moved page Hendrick K van Rensselaer to Hendrick K. Van Rensselaer: I expect this to be moved around a bit more, since none of the sources so far mentioned in the article actually state his name...)http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Henry_K._Van_Rensselaer&offset=&limit=500&action=history

If you look in the history you will notice the referenced I used... use both Henry and Hendrick. In addition to the WP:Wikihounding that started when the article was only 4 days old I get snide comments in the edit notes like 15:53, 24 December 2012‎ Kraxler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,392 bytes) (-193)‎ . . (removed irrelevant image, and redundant cats, needs to be moved back, this is NOT the Dutch wikipedia) Now with scores of pages devoted to redirects for an article it has seeped into the DAB of Henry Van Rensselaer or Henry van Rensselaer (cap variation) someone seems to think that even AFTER a WP:3O agreeing a DAB should not have one of the listings in bold and separated among other "Henry"'s as IF a Redirect page is a "primary topic"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted resolution of WP:wikihounding on User Talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kraxler#Addition Tried discussion of DAB on Article Talkpage Talk:Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation) including WP:3O

How do you think we can help?

Henry_van_Rensselaer_(disambiguation) should be deleted Henry_van_Rensselaer should be the same simple DAB page as all the rest, without bold and supposed primary topic canard as justification when the bold page is actually a redirect NOT an article. The only remaining actual article pages with minimal redirects should be Henry K. van Rensselaer (closest to what it was before the hounding) and Henry Bell Van Rensselaer and Hendrick van Rensselaer

Opening comments by Kraxler

Opening comments by JHunterJInitially

Henry K. Van Rensselaer (historically) Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (currently), discussion

The discussion will be closed as Kraxler has not participated in any discussion of the article, DRN is not able to delete pages. We can only facilitate discussion, not make binding consensus. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: He made 1 comment in the discussion but refuses to participate in DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Nazism sidebar#Parteiadler.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs)
• Frietjes (talk · contribs)
• PRODUCER (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over template design. Two users support a new template, two users do not support the proposed template. Divided consensus. Frustration and distrust between users has become too high for a collaborative resolution between the four users there for the past few days. Now there are five users there with User:Collect arriving, he/she has not yet decided on what should be used.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for all users involved to work to write a Request for Comment that would include the template with the flag that I supported, the template proposed by DIREKTOR, and other templates. This proposal was rejected by DIREKTOR.

I proposed an alternative template using the overall template DIREKTOR designed, but using an angled swastika rather than the Nazi eagle. I believed the angled swastika alone was simpler in appearance. This proposal was rejected by DIREKTOR.

How do you think we can help?

Outside intervention to find a means to resolve the dispute. Frustration and distrust between users is too high for a collaborative resolution. Outside assistance will be needed to provide guidance on what can be done to break the divided consensus of 2 in favour of DIREKTOR's proposal and 2 opposed. For the past few days it has been 4 users involved, recently today the user Collect arrived today and made a comment on the matter, Collect has not explicitly endorsed any proposal though has said what he favours more, now 5 users involved as shown above.

Opening comments by DIREKTOR

Opening comments by Frietjes

Opening comments by PRODUCER

Opening comments by Collect

I find the flag to be the "most common" symbol. The Hakenkreuz is used by too many other groups to be a valid single choice. The eagle is pretty, but also used in military items. Thus if it were a "vote" the flag wins. Personally, I think a more immutable symbol would be the "Arbeit Macht Frei" entrance. Collect (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F discussion

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Paul_Krugman&oldid=532478379#Endorsement_of_the_potential_issuance_of_a_trillion_dollar_coin
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532267338

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