 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Lexi Thompson
 | An RfC has been filed at the talk page. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:WilliamJE undid a large chunk of content on this page. User:Crunch, who created most, but not all, of that content, reverted the change charging bad faith and asking that changes of this scope be brought to the Discussion page. User:WilliamJE refused to bring the issue to the Discussion page to try to bring in more editors and a brief edit war ensued with some discussion taking place at User talk:WilliamJE. The site as of this minute is in place with User:WilliamJE's last edit. Users involved
WilliamJE has previously been involved in other disputes involving golf pages, with many of the regular golf article editors. Some of this is documented on his Talk page. As a case in point, see this: Post from WilliamJE on my (Crunch's) Talk page addressing edits I have made in the past that he supposed had to fix and addressing me in an unprofessional and rude manner.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
1. Encouraged WillamJE to discuss the change on the article's Discussion page.
What can we do to solve this problem? I think the change should be brought to the Discussion page so consensus can be reached. What can we do to facilitate that? Crunch (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Lexi Thompson discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I know that Crunch discussed the issue on WilliamJE's user page, but there is no discussion of the issue on Talk:Lexi Thompson. I know crunch said he encouraged WilliamJE to start a discussion, so why didn't Crunch just start a discussion along the lines of "I readded the information, and here is my reasoning why."? It seems like the best thing to do would be start a discussion there so the other editors on that article could weigh in on the issue. If you don't get enough responses that way, then take it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf, where editors who work on a lot of articles on pro golfers could say "yes, amateur losses should be listed that way" or "no, they shouldn't be listed that way". If your belief is found to be the consensus, and WilliamJE still keeps reverting, then some other action can be taken. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Azerbaijan
| Closed. There needs to be discussion about this issue on a talk page before we can accept this dispute. Please start a new discussion on Talk:Azerbaijan. Feel free to post here again if there are still problems after that. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Menikure and User:Van de Kemp are two pro-turkish users vandalizing and deleting well-sourced information on the Azerbaijan page Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
i've discussed the issue on talk pages of both users, vandalism and many edit reverts continued
block both users from pages regarding Armenia, Turkey, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Captain armenia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Azerbaijan discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Neutral point of view must be reflected. Nagorno-Karabakh is a de facto country that is internationally unrecognized by any internationally recognized country including Armenia and the United Nations. And the 3 countries the user mentions that recognize it, are also de facto countries that are internationally unrecognized by the United Nations: Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistiria. Van de Kemp (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Hi there, and thank you for posting here! I notice that there's no discussion about the material being reverted on Talk:Azerbaijan. I'm afraid you really need to talk about this on a talk page before we can deal with it here. Take it back to the talk page, and try and work out what it is about the material that you are disagreeing on, and remember to base your arguments on Knowledge policies. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
|
User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop
| Interaction has ceased, further proceedings here unnecessary. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User:Kainaw has been repeatedly posting personal attacks against me, first on my own talk page where a civil discussion was winding down and , then on his own talk page, first at a section started by a third party as a request to stop the personal attacks , and finally at a section with my own request for him to stop and . Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed it in the section where he first posted the first personal attack, then a third party created a new section on his own talk page to discuss this, and finally I tried to resolve it in a new section of his talk page which I created.
By helping Kainaw to cool down and by stopping the stream of personal attacks against me (Whoop whoop pull up). Whoop whoop pull up 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The personal attacks were uncalled for. Seems like he was warned about this by Beeblebrox already. The questions whoop whoop have been asking may have been frivolous though. I am willing to assume good faith but this may have happened numerous times already, not sure. Still, calling someone retarded isn't the way to handle this. ScienceApe (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am an uninvolved editor in this dispute, looking at the issues here for the first time. I will second Beeblebrox's advice - although some of the questions posted at the reference desk could have been answered by just reading the articles involved, there is no place in Knowledge for personal attacks, and these () definitely count as personal attacks. Probably the best thing for you both to do is to just stop interacting with each other for a while. There's no need for any more drastic measures just yet in my opinion, but if trouble persists it may become necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Kerala_Iyers
| Requesting editor has resigned from Knowledge; also request premature due to lack of sources for contested content. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The dispute is about how the community is to be viewed. Whether the actions/opinions of other communities about this community should be given prominence Users involved
"Yes".
Resolving the dispute
I have been discussing these in the talk page from 2007. I had also expanded the article to include certain points raised by the users. But the users insist of the retention of irrelevant and derogatory sentences.
The community pages in Knowledge is basically about the community. It is not about how others view the community or their views. Caste conflicts have been part of Indian history. But it is not part of Knowledge. Emphasizing on the (now illegal) obnoxious and inhuman practice of untouchability to prove the so called superiority of one caste over the other is not a Neutral Point of View. I need independent opinions. Sankarrukku (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Kerala_Iyers discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
1. The practice of Shudam (untouchabilty) by the Namboodiris. This practice of the Namboothiri community has no relevance in an article about Kerala Iyers. I do not find any mention of this in the article on Nairs or Ezhavas or any other community from Kerala. As I had posted earlier this article is about Kerala Iyers and not their relationship with other communities. BTW the Namboodiris very rarely got an opportunity to practice this untouchability because the Kerala Iyers were neither the tenants or farm laborers with whom the land owners came into contact. The reference is also from the site of the Namboothiri community. I had expanded the article to show the caste hierarchy in Kerala as under. <<Though they were classified as the highest cate in Tamil Nadu, Kerala Iyers (Tamil Brahmins) were ranked below the Namboothiris in the caste system of Kerala. But they were accorded a higher status than the Nairs who were considered shudras.>> 2. The community not becoming priests in Kerala temples. I had expanded the article to show why Tamil Brahmins did not become temple priests in Kerala as under. <<The Tamil Brahmins did not take up the profession of priesthood in Kerala temples as 1. They were Vaidika Brahmins. Vaidika Brahmins could not take up priesthood either in Tamil Nadu or in Kerala because the temple worship in Tamil Nadu is according to Agamas and the worship in Kerala is according to Kerala Tantras. 2. The sub castes which were in Kerala did not include Gurukkal brahmins who are the traditional priests in temples of Tamil Nadu. However they officiated as priests in temples erected by themselves in their agraharams.>> The other users want to show as if it is a punishment. I had mentioned in the discussions page Again a mention is made about Tamil Brahmins being not allowed to be priests of the local temples. The Tamil Brahmin sects who form the majority of the Kerala Iyers are not allowed to be priests even in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The Gurukkal caste are the only people allowed to be priests in the prominent temples. Temple priesthood was not considered a good profession by the Tamil Brahmins. They never went for that. This is in contrast to the Namboothiris who considered it a noble profession. 3. Kerala_Iyers being cooks. It is sought of be projected that the community was a army of cooks. I had expanded the article as under <<The Kerala Iyers were well known for their culinary skills. Most of the temples employed them as cooks. They started eateries called Brahmin Mess or Brahmin Hotel all over Kerala. Initially they catered to only the community because of the restrictions in taking food from outside. However later they served all the communities and became popular. They developed the local cuisine by introducing flavours of Tamil food.>> They did not become cooks in Namboodiri or Nair households because of caste considerations. They were preferred as cooks in temples because their being Brahmins all other communities took the food cooked by them. Subtle changes in sentences to bring down a very small linguistic community who are different because they speak Tamil and have their own Tamil culture. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't find anything derogatory .I just represents the facts from history.Moreover I wonder how someone can be of the conviction that cooking is a mean job! when there are people from many castes across India who have been forced to do the work of scavenger for more than a millennium.Iyers really cook good and many people love to eat in mess run by Iyers(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
I am not disputing facts. I am only asking whether it is Neutral Point of View to write about how one community viewed another. This is not done on community pages in Knowledge. Please check other pages. Plese see this page They call themselves Vishwa Brahmin. They are classified as other backward castes by the Government. Do the other castes view them as Brahmins? No one questions the name of the caste. Again I do not find any mention a about their position in the hierarchy of castes. In fact this statement about the position in the hierarchy of castes is not mentioned in most of the community pages. I can quote a number of community pages where exaggerated claims have been made about a particular caste. This is basic etiquette and also because it is not relevant. Again after opening this discussion I find that the following tags have been placed in the article. {{peacock|date=September 2011}} Unfortunately even the opening of the article which talks about migration can not be proved. There is no historical evidence about the migration of Tamil Brahmins to Travancore. The history books do not talk about any such migration. Being a very small, non-political, non-Controversial community there is hardly any historical reference to this community. Web resources reflect only a point of view and are not facts. That is why the article is still Stub Class. Of course I can live with the tags which could be applied to most of the community pages.Sankarrukku (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You have not answered any of the points raised by me. It is not the Knowledge policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. Allowing this would open a flood agate of disputes. A community web site represents its own version and view of the world. A citation from such a web site only reflects the view of the community. The question is does Neutral Point of view means Namboothiri Point of View? being temple priests is not the chosen profession of Iyers. you have chosen to portray the denail of priesthood as a great drawback and the reason for iyers becoming cooks. this is the Namboothiri point of view because they consider the profession of Priests to be nobe. I had explained this in my expansion of the article. You started the edit wars. Even the reference here has not ended the attempts of people form trying to impose their point of view. Sankarrukku (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC) A new user name has been created today for carrying on reversion in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Kuttappayi Sankarrukku (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I had stated It is not the Knowledge policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. I did not know how wrong I was. Any one can do it if they have muscle (number of users) power. For all this trouble I have been rewarded with a block. They trapped me by the creation of a new user which I have pointed out. A remark was made about my being a new editor. Yes I am though I have been editing since 2007. I have not yet learnt to play the game. So there ends my association with Knowledge. Best of luck to my two friends in their valiant efforts to destroy articles. You will progress in Knowledge. Sankarrukku (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Driving While Black
| It looks like we have reached a consensus here, although the details could do with some more fleshing out. I suggest that you do this on the talk pages of the articles involved, and to come back here if the discussion gets stuck. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Knowledge policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.
Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Driving While Black discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general). The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have played around with a draft of what the article might look like if we took out discussion that was just about racial profiling and the sources themselves didn't mention "driving while black" or a variation of. You can look at it here:User:Mmyers1976/Driving_While_Black_Draft Everyone feel free to play around with it. Incidentally, three of the sources are dead links, and the assertion about the term "shopping while black" is unsourced, those should be fixed if the article remains. I personally don't "disagree" with the term, or find it biased or offensive, but looking at the article, even if we keep the article, "Driving While Black" appears to be the wrong title for the article. The article puts most of its weight on variations on the term, so really the article is not about "Driving While Black", the article is about "(insert activity here)-ing while (insert ethnicity here)". Obviously THAT title won't work either ;). I noticed as well when looking at the sources for the variations, none of those sources acknowledges that these are derived from or are variations on the term "driving while black". So, if we are going to keep the article, the way I see it is we have two options: 1. Rename the article so the title is more descriptive and doesn't put too much weight on any one variation. 2. Flesh out the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that it doesn't violate WP:NOT#DICT. For the first option, I can't think of a suggestion. For the second item, I think it would be important to use sources that discuss the usage of the term, not just provide examples of the term being used, or else the article is in danger of becoming a link farm. I think we would also need sources that clearly establish that "driving while black" is the dominant variation, or else the original term from which the other terms sprang. Freechild, you seem to be the one who really feels strongly about keeping the article, how do you envision that we could expand the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that the article isn't a dictionary definition or really a discussion of all the "*-ing while *" terms? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Femme Fatale Tour
| Closing as stale. Please feel free to list this dispute again here if problems reoccur. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th , arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." I opened a discussion here, but other editors encouraged me to open a discussion on the article's talk page. I did, and of course, it didn't work. I even invited another editor and he still reverted all the changes. He's also removing more information from the article that we did not discuss. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits. It's basically the same situation as the previous discussion.
Itsbydesign should understand that as a Knowledge editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Femme Fatale Tour discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi there, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. The question here, I think, is how much weight reliable sources on the tour give to Minaj's performance. If reliable sources gave Minaj's set decent coverage in relation to Britney's set, then I don't see any problem in including her set list. From the two sources that you linked to above, it seems that Minaj's set was fairly well-covered in the press. I found this quote from Itsbydesign on the talk page that looks like it sums up their position on the matter:
I would like to hear from Itsbydesign how they can reconcile this view with WP:WEIGHT, which says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Knowledge editors or the general public". In Knowledge it really is what the sources say that matters. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Malformed request. Please re-list using the "Initiate a new discussion" button and answering all questions on the form. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
I wish to report harrassment by the above username. He has an arrogant attitude and has left insulting messages on my talk page as part of an edit war on Big Brother 2011. I have requested he stops, he has a high opinion of himself and persecutes other editors with insults and rude comments. He has to stop.86.176.153.183 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture
| This one looks resolved. Let me know if issues re-arise on my talk page. Steve Zhang (talk) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Obstructionism, stalling, ignoring the outcome of a previous dispute resolution. Users involved
At some point, a highly biased section entitled “Allegation of torture” was created. It cited only an Amnesty International opinion paper as “proof” that the allegations were true. EDIT: hh has attempted to work with me on this issue. I am unsure he has any interest in this matter one way or the other at this point.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Two SEPARATE discussions on the subject, including one request to simply use a different (un-biased) source and a sub-section simply to hash out the final text. Yes, I have tried very hard to work this out beforehand.
Tell them to: Additionally: Trying To Make Knowledge At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I think we can dismiss the additional caltrops issue as already discussed and closed with consensus. Many secondary reliable sources were brought forward to show that caltrops are considered non-lethal weapons, but Reddson stuck to his one primary document, an arguably irrelevant law from California which determined that an individual's use of caltrops would be prosecuted by California the same as if a felony deadly weapon had been used, but did not define caltrops themselves as a deadly weapon. Very many other highly regarded expert sources call caltrops a non-lethal weapon. Reddson was the sole voice arguing to remove caltrops from the article about non-lethal weapons. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on this. I have had a look at the talk page, and I think all the editors involved are actually making good points. Regarding the material that Andering J. REDDSON is proposing to add, it is clearly not cited well enough yet to go in the article. We must respect the content policies of verifiability and no original research, and this requires sourcing each claim that could be questioned with a reliable source that specifically backs up that claim. It is not enough to insert it in the article with a promise to find sources later. However, Reddson does have a point, in that the section as it currently exists is problematic. The section heading "Allegations of torture" sounds sensationalist, and should be replaced with something that can reflect both sides of the issue; the source http://www.nopepperspray.org/ is not reliable and should not be used to back up any claims here; and the Amnesty source needs to be attributed in all instances, as it clearly has an agenda in reporting these issues. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is remove questionable material from the current version while Reddson's new version is being written. When the new version gains consensus on the page, then it can be inserted in the article. I will have a go at trimming the problematic parts from the current section to try and make an acceptable interim version. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Syrian Malabar Nasrani
| I recommend filing a new case on this dispute at the Mediation Cabal. Please note that although views given by editors here can count towards consensus on a page, we cannot make any binding decisions about content. Mediation would give you a space to work all the issues out with respect to policy, and without going off-topic. I'm afraid there simply isn't enough space to do that on this noticeboard. If you want more advice on the options available to you, I will be happy to give it on my talk page. All the best - Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Users involved Ashleypt notified Robin klein of this dispute.
Yes. Informed Robin Klein. He is the only editor in dispute as far as I know. Resolving the dispute
Raised the matter in the Discussion Board of the Article. Since there are more than 4 million Syrian Christian in Kerala and many may refer the article, it would have been appropriate to correct the document as soon as possible. So I modified the page after raising my contentions in the Discussion Page after mentioning sufficient sources on the subject. But it triggered an 'edit-war"
Kindly intervene to allow an inclusive article on the history of 40 million Syrian Christians in Kerala in Knowledge. --Ashleypt (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Syrian Malabar Nasrani discussionI have to say that User:Ashleypt is not accurate when he says that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. There are other users as well who have reverted his POV edits. Please see the history of the article ] Other editors involved include User:SpacemanSpiff and a user without an account 117.201.250.33 Ashleypt has been deleting references and adding his own ideas and now incorrectly stating that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. He has further stated there is no proof yet about Nasrani descent. However I should state that the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized. For latest research on Nasrani heritage and Jewish descent. Please refer to research by Dr Mini Kariappa, of Department of Anatomy, Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur. Dr Mini Kariappa has done DNA analysis of syrian malabar nasranis and found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis. She presented her reserach on september 5th 2011. There was a link of her interview in the malayalam language that was published in a malayalam language newspaper in Kerala. Here is the link http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentId=10033956&programId=1073753770&channelId=-1073751706&BV_ID=@@@&tabId=11 Ashleypt is trying to promote a casteist idea of nationalist supremacy that aspires to assume a 'supposed' superiority of the supposed elite 'Brahmin' hierarchical casteist society by trying to state that the Nasranis are brahmins. I should remind you that the Malabar Nasranis were persecuted in the Portuguese analogue of the Spanish inquisition known as the Portuguese Inquisition with the Portuguese burning hundreds of Syriac documents. Kindly see to it that Knowledge does not become a platform where people propagate age old casteist ideas. Ashleypt does not give any support for stating the legends of brahmin descent saying that these are long held ideas. Denying and even brushing aside the latest DNA results. The latest DNA result shows the admixture of Jewish diaspora and local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Which has always been stated in the article. In fact he distorts the admixture with local people as admixture with Brahmin, which is incorrect and at the root of the problem. Again to repeat. The article has always maintained that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are an admixture of local South Indian Malabar people and the Jewish people just as latest DNA results support. However Ashleypt is in the attempt to remove the mention of local admixture and make it seem as brahmin. Ashleypt is not concerned or interested about the admixture of Jewish diaspora with the local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Instead his real interest is the supposed 'Brahmin superiority'. Robin klein (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Thank you for your guidance on editing an article in Knowledge. I appreciate your views and would try to modify the article as you directed. --Ashleypt (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Mr. Stradivarius thank you very much for the feedback. I also want to say that the dispute was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard by Ashleypt and I did not make any changes to the article until I heard from you. However Ashleypt reverted edit before the matter was brought on the dispute resolution board. thanks Robin klein (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Dear Mr.Stradivarius, I'm quite happy to inform you that I and Mr. Robin have reached a consensus on the above mentioned sentence in the article and both agreed on it as "The Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people and Jewish diaspora in Kerala who were evangelized by St. Thomas in the Malabar Coast in the earliest days of Christianity." This modification is the only one I have done after posting the dispute here {(cur | prev) 09:38, 26 September 2011 Ashleypt (talk | contribs) (55,116 bytes) (undo).} Mr. Robin Klein agreed to it in a discussion on the page: Knowledge talk:WikiProject Christianity/Cleanup. Now Mr. Robin Klein's major contention is the inclusion of the following sentence:".It could be drawn from the early history of Kerala that in the 1st century after Christ a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Musiris in which the elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains as well as some migrated Jews and Arabs lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." He presumes that this sentence implicate the conversion of brahmins by St.Thomas. Even though the tradition suggests the conversion of some brahmins by the apostle, I refrained from directly mentioning anything about it to avoid any more controversy. It's not bold,but I think, it's up to the readers who could draw an opinion depending on their point of view. With Regards, --Ashleypt (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
--Ashleypt (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
--Ashleypt (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
--Ashleypt (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Robin and Ashleypt. Reading your subsequent posts, it seems that this discussion could become quite long as we examine all the details. Would you be willing to take this to another venue? I think this case would be suited to informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal. What do you both think of this suggestion? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 07:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Robin, I was distressed with your adamant statement despite clear knowledge of factual error. The Copper Plates given to Mar Sapor and Co just suggest that a few Semitic Christians joined the native Christian community in 9th century. The Thazhekad Edict which is older than Copper Plates you mentioned and more importantly related to the Christian community at Kodungalloor where the earliest Christian settlement was available doesn't have any hint of Semitic migration to Christian community before 9th century. Moreover there are Moreover, there were Jewish settlements in Ceylone, Kalyan, Goa, China etc, but we can't see similar Christian communities anywhere there. Now if you claim that there were no Christians in Kerala before 9th century, there are multiple evidences against that postulate. I could guide you if you specify that. From the cultural affinity of St.Thomas Christians to Hindus contrary to other Abrahamic religions in Kerala - Cochin Jews and Muslims, the ancestry could be easily traced. When Portuguese 1st came here, they surprised to see St. Thomas Christian community indistinguishable in the social blend with Hindu community. Even their Church architecture, processions, life style, offerings etc were all identical to those of Hindus. As you know, all these Hindu Rituals(nearly 1500) were banned by the Synod of Udayamperoor. If the so-called purification by Latin Missionaries were not done, you just imagine - what could have been our present status. From the point of view of Hindus too, they gave special preference to St.Thomas Christians against other communities. Nazranis were invited by Hindus for touching and purifying the oil and utensils to be used in the temples and palaces. Concomitantly certain Christian families were specially invited offering them land and were made to settle down near the temples and palaces for the purpose of touching and purifying the oil (enna thottu kodukkan) and for purifying the vessels being ‘polluted’ by the touch or use of lower caste people. In many localities christian men attired themselves with sacred thread, tuft(kudumi) and observed pollution by birth and death just like brahmins. ie St.Thomas withheld Hindu culture and Hindus accepted them as pure caste while other Semitic migrants failed to assimilate smoothly to alien culture just as Cochin Jews. --Ashleypt (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Death of Ian Tomlinson
| Closing as stale. If this becomes a problem again please leave a note on my talk page and I will un-archive this thread. Thanks - Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
This is a very simple content dispute. A few months ago, I raised an RFC in which I articulated my case for updating the lead of the article. Everyone involved in that discussion, apart from SlimVirgin, agreed with the fundamental point that the lead needed updating. Eventually, SlimVirgin appeared to remove herself from proceedings, a consensus was subsequently reached and a new lead was inserted. That lead then remained in the article without complaint for the next two months. Last month, a completely separate editor raised an issue with the new lead. Despite the fact that (in my view) the problem raised could have been solved very simply, SlimVirgin instantly reverted back to the old lead without explaining why that actually addressed the issues raised by the editor - and without waiting for anyone else to comment. She has since been asked to explain her reasoning by myself and another editor, but she has not done so. (All this is in the sections 'Unlawfully killed' in archive 2 of the talk page and 'Unexplained reversions' on the talk page itself.) She has also reverted - again without any talk page justification - any attempt to return to the previously agreed lead. These reverts are as follows: Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
As mentioned in the overview, I have posted twice on the talk page, asking SlimVirgin to explain her reasoning. Both attempts have been ignored. (note, 26 July is incorrect. The date should be 26 June. I subsequently corrected this.)
I would simply like appropriate process to be followed. Given the lengthy previous discussion, I feel it appropriate that SlimVirgin should have to articulate her position and establish a consensus on the talk page before making such changes. Unilaterally overriding everyone else cannot be right. Elvellian (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Death of Ian Tomlinson discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Campaign for "santorum" neologism
| User has chosen to file an RfC. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
I proposed that the first sentence of the introduction be:
I would like more input about this, as this is currently disputed. There are a few editors who have been involved with the issue for several months and this could use outside input. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have initiated a few discussions about this issue with little input except from editors who have been heavily involved for months. It is an article with relevance to current events so I am requesting additional input rather than waiting.
Add outside input to the dispute SGMD1 /Contribs 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Campaign for "santorum" neologism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
It would be much better to have input from outside, and also not just editors who've taken a break. B——Critical 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Given that there are BLP issues here, and also POV issues, would it be appropriate to post a neutral note to those noticeboards to ask for more eyes on the RFC? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC) I am an uninvolved editor looking at these issues for the first time. SGMD1, when I saw your proposal the first reaction that I had was that it wouldn't work. There has been a large amount of debate at the talk page, and similar proposals for the first sentence have been made before, but were disputed by other editors. I can see no indication that anything is different this time round. You claim that your proposed sentence does not violate WP:BLP, but actually, I think it does; specifically, WP:BLPGOSSIP. The "definition" is, of course, important to an understanding of the campaign for the "santorum" neologism, but putting it in the first sentence gives it undue weight, in my opinion, and risks readers assuming that its association with Rick Santorum is more tangible than it really is. Knowledge should not merely repeat what a smear campaign says about a person, but should put it in its proper light in relation to the campaign itself.I think that probably the best thing to do here is just to drop the issue - pursuing it further will probably only result in frustration for all involved. However, if you insist on taking this to the next step, then starting a new RfC is the way to do it. I think it would be appropriate to advertise it on the talk pages of any related WikiProjects, but probably not at community noticeboards, as things outside noticeboards' remits are frequently refactored or ignored. Sorry for the slightly blunt post, but I hope this has been useful. If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 07:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Jared Leto
| Closing as stale. If this becomes a problem again, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will un-archive this discussion. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing sourced material which is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. With his version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). There is also a consensus at the peer review to keep that content and he is still removing it, ignoring that this version represents consensus among editors. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk:Jared Leto, Knowledge:Peer review/Jared Leto/archive1 and User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
To judge whether that material can remain in the article. Earthh (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Jared Leto discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Speedy close, and trout-slap the initiating editor for misuse of this process. As should be evident from review of the article and its talk page, several experienced editors have raised objections to the tone and excessively favorable POV in Earthh's previously undiscussed revamp/expansion of the Jared Leto article. Since the objections were raised, no editors have supported Earthh's position. Rather than respecting the on-article consensus, Earthh insists that the vaguely/generally favorable comments by a single editor at a prior peer review entitles him to reinstate the dubious material, and does so on a (roughly) weekly basis. Note also that Earthh did not notify User:Nymf and User:John, the other editors who've actively been involved in trying to prune tghge article (which still needs to be cleaned up further), but did canvass the peer-reviewing editor, who hasn't been involved in the actual editing dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
DRN Co-ordinator's comment: Hullaballoo if anything the trout slap belongs to you. As a long time editor I would have expected you to engage the wheels of DR again rather than be dismissive of the other editor in the situation. Earthh, part of this board's purpose is to be used after discussion has come to a stand still on the article page. Based on the fact that there was only generic information on the Peer Review and no assertions that the Fancruft-ish content could stay regardless of citations, I strongly suggest you open a discussion, 3rd Opinion request, or RfC on the article's talk page to discuss the content you and Hullaballoo are warring over. Don't expect to have many people interested in supporting your side as the content is really on that edge of puffery and indiscriminate content that most editors are not very tollerant of. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment as the peer reviewer in question, I basically said that I thought the removals of POV and peacock language had improved the article, but that it seemed like the removed material on Mr. Leto's assorted paramours might be included, provided it was properly referenced to reliable sources, and that it followed the model of FAs on similar figures (prominent actors or rock musicians). Please do not bicker about this on my talk page, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>° 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC) To Earthh - Hi, and thank you for posting here at the DRN! I'm glad that you have taken the time to file a dispute resolution post here, as it is a lot better to get all these issues aired out in the open. It allows everyone to take a step back from the situation, and look at things from a fresh perspective. Now I have taken a brief look at the article and the talk page, and I see that there are lots of different things under dispute. It's hard to sort out all the issues when the disputed content is fragmented across the page like this, so I think it will be a lot more efficient to focus on just one specific thing to start with. We can have a look at the most important point under dispute, and hopefully the results of that will shine some light on the other things as well. So, Earthh, if you will humour me for a while, I have a question: of the content you added that was removed by other editors, what sentence would you most like to go in the article, and why? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Zoellick bio
| Closed. Please see my closing remarks below. Thanks - Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal. Users involved
Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.
Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000. Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Zoellick bio discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:
Even though previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Zoellick bio closing commentsClosing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Knowledge articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:
and
My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Knowledge, 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"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair. Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him. About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your time spent in reviewing the primary sources. I appreciate your advice that these sources establish that the gentlemen's agreement for the US to appoint the President of the World Bank has ended and that the US Congress refused to approve the World Bank's general capital increase without reform of the World Bank. I understand that where you disagree with Mediation Cabal's previous mediator is that these sources must be used with care, based upon original research and synthesis of sources. Here is a reliable secondary source which synthesizes these two assertions. Bloomberg's Sandrine Rastello states that the US should use its approval of the World Bank's general capital increase as a quid-pro-quo for appointment of an American as World Bank president. This reliable secondary source supports the facts that there is no longer agreement that the US may appoint the World Bank President, that the Gentlemen's Agreement ended, and that the US Congress has not approved the general capital increase for the World Bank. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-06/geithner-may-back-lagarde-to-keep-american-at-world-bank.html These facts, supported in primary sources and synthesized in the Businessweek article, are required to keep Robert Zoellick's bio from misleading Knowledge's readers. Currency1 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
So Demiurge finally agrees that the Gentlemen's Agreement is over? He is now arguing relevance, but this is not the point now that the Businessweek article answers original research and synthesis of sources. The relevance to Mr. Zoellick's bio is that Mr. Zoellick, as the last US President of the World Bank that the World Bank's members allowed to be appointed by the US under the Gentleman's Agreement, failed to preserve the Gentleman's Agreement.Currency1 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The Zoellick bio cited below gives the misleading impression that it is up to the White House to select the next President of the World Bank. The question how the next head of the World Bank is appointed is already set out in reliable primary sources http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/22885978/DC2011-0006(E)Governance.pdf, and is substantiated by the Businessweek article. It will be up to the 187 members of the World Bank to appoint Robert Zoellick's successor. Demiurge, I did not state, as you are accusing me, that "it was a failure on Zoellick's part to preserve ." I simply drew the conclusion from these facts that Robert Zoellick's presidency ended the Gentleman's Agreement.
It was okay to revert my edits, even though they were supported by reliable primary and secondary sources and informed Knowledge's readers of the notable fact that President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended? What about http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary?Currency1 (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Zoellick bio closing comments (second time)I did say that I would avoid closing this thread myself, but it seems that this discussion is no longer productive, and there is no sign of intervention from other editors. The opinion of all the neutral editors involved so far has been that the material that Currency1 suggests should not be inserted into the article, and it seems that discussion here is simply dragging out the issues, rather than resolving them. Due to their conflict of interest, I recommend that Currency1 restrict themselves to making suggestions for inclusion on the article's talk page, and I think that further discussions should be held there. If Currency1 is not happy with the responses received so far then the next logical step would be to file a request for comments on the article's talk page to assess support on the edits from the wider community. Again, if you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 10:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Sonny Bill Williams
| Closed as resolved. The current level of sourcing doesn't seem to be enough to insert the claim in the article as fact, with no prejudice as to whether or not it can be inserted if another source is found. If there are more issues with the article, then they should be discussed at the talk page, and if further discussions there break down you are welcome to file a new dispute back here. I advise you both to adhere to a strict code of no personal comments in your interactions with each other, but if you absolutely must take up the issue somewhere, then that place is WP:WQA. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The main disagreement is over whether this sentence can be added to the article: "He is also the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby." The source says "He might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" The disagreement is over whether the "might be" in the sentence applies to the "only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers". One editor is argueing that it does not therefore we can say that he is the only sportsmen to do so, while myself and another editor are argueing that it means he might be the only sportsmen and therefore should not be added using this source. So far no other sources have been provided that cleary state that he is and no other editors have left an opinion. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
There are two threads on the talk page discussing this Talk:Sonny Bill Williams#Nine cites in the lead for one sentence and Talk:Sonny Bill Williams#Regarding boxing-ruby status and send off. These also contain other disagreements, but the sentence mentioned in the overview seems to be the most contentious.
Currently consensus is weak so it would be good to get some other editors involved to assess whether the citation can be used to justify saying Williams is the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Sonny Bill Williams discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am not going to respond to BA questioning my ability to edit English Knowledge other than to say it is a suggestion that lacks good faith. I have shown with a mass of examples that i am more than capable to edit in English. On the other hand i actually could prove that there is no other professional boxer-international rugby player. This can easily be done by looking at the world rankings of a few of the higher weight divisions to see whether their are any such players in that list. Perhaps BA would also like to check for himself on boxrec. My point is you will not find one because this is in keeping with what was initially stated in the reference. Once again i say the "might" applies only to his being courted because his being courted is the issue of contention depending upon ones own definitions eg. is Dan Carter's agreed sabbaticals considered courting as compared to the NZRU's initial attempts to lure SBW to NZ? This is what the author was unsure of. Perhaps he could of been more grammatically clear about it so this unnecessary debate would never have needed to start in the first place, but it should be quite clear by now to any person of serious SBW knowledge that the source means he is the only pro boxer-intl rugby player.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a neutral mediator in regard to this dispute. My comments will be limited to only the question presented in the "Dispute Overview" section. Let me start out by saying that if the sentence could in good faith be said to be ambiguous then using it for any purpose which would require analyzing it or interpreting it would be forbidden as original research, but the sentence is clearly unambiguous. The "might" clearly applies to both dependent clauses in the first independent clause of the sentence (the remaining independent clause of that compound sentence being "Williams also has stories to tell" following the conjunction "but"). If the "might" were to only affect the first dependent clause, that clause ought to be able to be removed from the sentence without making it ungrammatical, but doing so does in fact make it ungrammatical: "He
Actually, i never looked at it this way Mr. Stradivarius. But your interpretation actually makes sense grammatically. Correction for BiggerAristotle: actually all evidence would point to SBW being the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks. The NZRU went out of their way to court and lure SBW to join them. No other player has been pursued in such fashion to return from abroad. Just thought i would correct you there.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. Okay mate. You can believe whatever you want if that helps you sleep at night. I do not say i am a SBW fan for no reason. I say it because i am very knowledgeable when it comes to him. The word "court" as applied in the references you mention is very loose. Courting can be as simple as telling someone to come from abroad to play for you. This in actuallity is what all your references suggest. It is one thing to try and convince someone to play for you, it is a whole new sphere to see the way the NZRU and even Graham Henry rolled out the red carpet for SBW. It is also another thing to be allowed to hold professional boxing bouts in your contract and to be chosen to represent the All Blacks after not even playing a single game in the Super competition. That is what "courting" really means- not what you would like to believe, which if understood according to you would simply apply to every overseas player whom the NZRU would like to see play for them. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou Mr. Stradivarius for your patient and cool demeanour. Unfortunately i have not found a reliable source. So i guess until i do there is no point sustaining this repetitive argument with BA. I still agree with your grammatical understanding of the statement. However, i also agree with your request that it should be removed until a more reliable source is found. Thankyou again for your constructive critique and advice. Now on to BA. I could respond to your "court" issues- but to what end? I want to put this and the boxer/rugby statement behind me now. However, i will say regarding my being unfit to edit SBW: i am definitely fit to edit the article. If you look at my edit history you will find i only add statistical information and detail (e.g. Tries or records). I have no room for sentimental edits because i know what is required of me as an editor on Knowledge. Just because i have disagreements with editors does not make me unfit to edit. Disagreements and differences of opinion are natural. It is how they are resolved that matters. Also, i do not think you should be taking my suspicion of your sockpuppetry too offensively. Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you were dealing with an editor who had an account that overwhelmingly only lay in wait to edit the SBW article, yet was not a fan of the sportsmen. Add to that, the editor is very uncompromising in his views- that happen to have the feel of an anti-SBW bias. Wouldn't you also suspect that person was simply using his account to express a certain bias, while you can also imagine them having another account they use to edit articles they perhaps are a fan of? So i think you should be a little more understanding and should also drop the negative toned sarcasm you seem to love employing e.g. not just upon myself, but also Mr. Stradivarius. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Look, i am just going to leave it at that. I could respond in my own defence very ably, but this argument just keeps going around in circles with no benefit to anyone. Cheers.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Road coordinates
| Referred to the Mediation Cabal. I think mediation would be a good fit for this dispute, and three of the involved editors seem to agree. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
We appear to have tag-team from the US roads project, editing M5 motorway (a UK road) in an attempt to quash the use of coordinates. In itself, this would be a mere content dispute, but they're claiming consensus where non exists, following a highly confrontational debate in August. Given all the ownership, calls for voting, failure to understand or apply policy, and so on, in that debate, it's clear this isn't going away. I readily admit to being an involved party; some neutral oversight might be useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Road coordinates discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Andy, this same issue (or something similar) was brought to DRN recently, and we suggested an RFC be opened on the matter? Did you open an RFC? Steven Zhang 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be the only motorway in the UK with coordinates listed for each junction. Too often Knowledge seems to be about childish disputes by people who want to rock the boat or those who believe "My Way for the Highway". I like coordinates in articles and use them frequently to get a better understanding through maps and images - I just don't understand why we need this list, in this place, against normal usage. That, to me, is the same as against accepted policy. I think you could make better use of your time, than squabbling here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - I see that you didn't work out any general guidelines in the end. Maybe this will be a good test case for how guidelines could be written, or if they are necessary. Anyway, in the last DRN thread on coordinates, I remember convincing arguments being made that some roads articles were suited for coordinates and some were not, and that there didn't seem to be a compelling argument one way or the other based solely on content policies. For these reasons, I think "consensus rules" in this debate, as it were, and to reach a consensus here both sides will need to compromise. When compromise is the issue, I think mediation is a useful tool. How would you feel about taking this to the mediation cabal? This may give the editors involved a strong sense of deja vu, but some improvements have been made at the cabal (with more on the way), so you may find it a more attractive option than you did last time. Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Kunbi
| Discussion has been taken back to the article talk page. I will keep an eye on things while the article is being expanded, and if further issues come up we can deal with them on the talk page or on my user talk. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
The article contains a total of six sources at present. Among these, four are about a hundred years old or more. All of these are written by non experts. Are these sources reliable sources? Here are the sources: Various census of India. 1867. pp. 36–. Retrieved 13 May 2011. Bhattacharya, Jogendra Nath (1896). Hindu castes and sects: an exposition of the origin of the Hindu caste system and the bearing of the sects towards each other and towards other religious systems. Thacker, Spink. pp. 270–. Retrieved 13 May 2011. Balfour, Edward (1885). The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial Industrial, and Scientific: Products of the Mineral, Vegetable, and Animal Kingdoms, Useful Arts and Manufactures. Bernard Quaritch. Russell, R. V.; Lai, R. B. H. (1995). The tribes and castes of the central provinces of India. Asian Educational Services. ISBN 9788120608337. (The last source is supposed to be from 1995 according to the citation. But it was actually published in 1916.) Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page. But was referred to here.
By answering whether these four sources are reliable sources. MW 16:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Kunbi discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. MangoWong, you were referred to WP:RSN, not here. You had previously tagged the article to be checked for reliable sources, and I did that. I also tried to explain why they are ok even though I would prefer more modern sources. This issue has been discussed across numerous articles due to your misunderstanding of WP:RS. RSN is indeed the correct forum & I encourage you to use it. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Ok, we'll do it here, just to keep you happy, Please note that I added none of these sources to the article and that I would be as pleased as anyone else to see more, and more modern, sources used.
So, as I said on the article talk page, "I had already checked. In the absence of anything more modern, they are fine. The names are all well-known in the field of oriental studies. Sure, I would prefer something newer but that does not make them wrong, especially given that the article is carefully worded to put the attributed statements in context with regard to the time period". - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
MangoWong, is there a specific thing in the current version of the article that you object to? Maybe the inclusion of a particular claim backed up by one of these old references, or wording that you think is not neutral? We really need to focus on specific things in order to work towards resolving the disputes on this page. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
With regard to my item A in the list, written by R J Barendse. You will find references to shudra status of various Kunbi groups on pages 98, 429, 644 and 914, in parts of which he is specifically discussing the caste system prevalent at the time. He even notes that the Kunbis of Goa were Christian, and cites an interesting piece by Dirks on p 644 which pretty much mirrors concerns mentioned in the recent WT:IN thread. Given that one of our concerns has been the fluidity of the system & the extent to which the Brits stamped their mark on it, it is useful for our own purposes as contributors to know that at least these groups were shudra as far back as the 1700s when the Dutch VOC ruled the roost rather than the British. What is your objection to this source? - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
About this DRN thread - I'm afraid we can't discuss all the issues related to the article here, due to a lack of space. As you seem to have reached an initial compromise about the mention of "shudra" in the etymology section, I think it would be appropriate to move the discussion back to the talk page. If you are both willing to keep discussion civil, based on Knowledge policy, and you are both willing to compromise, then I think it is perfectly possible to work out the details in talk. Also, I think it would be helpful to wait until the article is in a more stable state before attempting any further forms of dispute resolution. When articles are being rapidly developed dispute resolution is a lot less effective. How about this as a temporary solution: we take the discussion back to the talk page, I keep an eye on the article while it is being expanded, and if there are any further disputes I can give advice on the talk page or on my user talk. Does that sound reasonable to you both? — Mr. Stradivarius 14:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
|