Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small 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 Wikipedia. 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 Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Titel | Status | User | Zeit | User | Zeit | User | Zeit |
| RRR | Closed | SaibaK (t) | 4 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
2014 Formula One season
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
- Joetri10 (talk · contribs)
- Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs)
- Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs)
- GyaroMaguus (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
On 9 March Prisonermonkeys launched a proposal to remove the Official Race Titles from the calendars which have been present for quite some years on the Formula One season articles. His proposal was not met with a consensus to implement it, yet Prisonermonkeys tried to force the proposal through by removing the content on two occasions (on the 10 and 12th of March) despite not gaining a consensus to do so. The discussion later dried out after several unsuccessful proposals to improve the calendar altogether. However, the discussion was resumed om the 26th of March and has been continuing since. On the 30th of March Prisonermonkeys tried again to force the proposal through by removing the content a total of four times, breaking WP:3RR in the process, despite still not having gained the desired consensus. As a result of that the page was put under full protection by HJ Mitchell and has remained in this state until now following an extension of the full protection period. The talk page discussion has continued in the meantime and the side in support of the removal now continuously claim a consensus in favor of them, primarily based on a head count, despite the long list of arguments presented by both sides. In addition to the users whom I have listed, both sides have received some approval by another few users who haven't brought in any arguments of their own, hence why I didn't list them among the "Users involved"
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have thoroughly discussed the matter with them on the article's Talk page and I have initiated a Request For Comment as well, which hasn't however brought any new input in the discussion so far.
How do you think we can help?
We are looking for a member of the community who is neutral on this matter and who is prepared to read through an consider all the presented arguments by either side and their merits by either side to determine wether or not the consensus for the removal of the content has been achieved.
Summary of dispute by Joetri10
No comment. I leave Tvx1 to explain this as he can in a much more detailed manner. All I can explain regarding my actions and opinion on the matter is that I try to expand the article in terms of extra complete relevant information so that the article is more helpful and educational to those who may be more interested. What started off becoming an argument about sponsorship details and the gross ignorance displayed by Prisonermonkeys has resulted in a 'complete opinionated democracy', a call of heads as it were. Understandably so I can relate in not wanting trivia and foreign languages featuring as much as possible although when speaking about the official detailing of events including that which forms the sport and is present in many aspects, it can be a tricky game of opinion and wins over what our sources use, why, for what purpose and how that should relate to this page when really it shouldn't at all. We are our own separate source for information, we should give as much as we can and to be as helpful as we can. It matters not what we 'think' is useless and useful for the page when we can otherwise resolve in a neutral agreement by showing 100% accurate information. The positives; if even small outweigh the negatives. It only serves to help. There was nothing wrong with this information before and I feel the arguments for deletion are weaker then they should be. *JoeTri10_ 12:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet
Tvx1's precis of the situation is somewhat disingenuous. He has omitted to mention two other editors (User:QueenCake and User:Falcadore) who have supported removal of the column in question from the table, plus two further editors (User:Hydrox and User:StandNThrow) who entered the debate. He also says that other users supported retention of the column – untrue. There were no other editors in favour of retaining the column. The "head count" was at least 5:2, and Prisonermonkeys considered this to constitute a consensus and I agree with him. Tvx1 and Joetri have refused to suggest any compromise, whereas I and others have clearly stipulated that the information in the column will continue to be present in other, more appropriate articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider the information in the column in question to be relatively trivial, this being the official race title of each Grand Prix of the season, e.g. Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014, in light of the presence of the generic race title, e.g. Spanish Grand Prix. Both titles are not required, in my view. This information belongs in the generic race article as above, plus the individual race report, in this case 2014 Spanish Grand Prix, along with all the other relevant details of the race itself. The race title has no bearing on the season itself, and 2014 Formula One season is the general summary article about the season, not a repository for all the minute details of each race. These season articles are prone to clutter and trivia, and we are attempting to restrict it to the essential facts for purposes of readability and article size. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth mentioning that there have recently been a number of similarly lengthy and frustrating debates on Formula One talk pages, for example a two-month argument about the formatting of the table of drivers, and a six-week row about the driver Sergei Sirotkin. Cool-headed consensus-building and rational discussion is to all intents and purposes, non-existent on the Formula One WikiProject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am all for removing the mentioned race title in the table. As the url address bar of this site states "en.wikipedia", "en" refers mainly to English and so, I do not quite get the idea of having foreign native languages getting into the mix. That's about all I could say. My stand will always be the removal of that "race title" column. StandNThrow (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Prisonermonkeys
I agree that the description of the situation is not truly representative. There was enough support for a consensus to be formed; however, I feel that those in support of the minority have resorted to deliberate stalling tactics to try and force a situation where there is no consensus and thus keep the article as it is. Almost every single argument made by the majority has been shot down on the grounds that it is weak or unproven, despite the way enough people agree with them to form a consensus. There is also an over-reliance on the idea that consensus is not a vote; while true, it ignores the clear majority, and allows a minority to prevent a consensus from being formed, regardless of how big the majority is.
In the interests of expediting the resolution, here is a summary of the arguments in favour of removal:
- The FIA - the sport's governing body - does not recognise those race titles as the formal names of the races.
- Almost all of the secondary sources used in the article do not use the race titles.
- Everything within the column is redundant, having been explained elsewhere in the article, or covered in a more-appropriate article.
- The only unique content in the column is the name of the individual race sponsors. And while sponsorship is important, it only affects individual races, rather than the season as a whole (which is what the article is about). Furthermore, the exact importance has not been established, and all sponsors really get is a bit more signage around the circuit.
- This being the English-language Wikipedia, the emphasis should be on English; other languages should only be used when necessary.
- Any "educational and informative value" the column provides is effectively trivia; if somebody is looking to learn about the Hungarian language, for example, there is an article for that.
I will leave it to those in favour of keeping the column to outline their arguments. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GyaroMaguus
While I previously supported the motion of Tvx1 and Joetri10, I changed my standpoint for removal of the column. I believe the column serves little useful purpose, and have produced many points, including: use foreign language when avoidable should be discouraged; the official names are only used by sources they are bound to use them, are not to the season as a whole and the article titles are not the official names; linking the full race titles will most likely confuse readers; we shouldn't force our readers to work out something for themselves; people do not come to the 2014 Formula One season article for all F1 queries; etc. Bretonbanquet has provided equally valid and correct arguments; while Prisonermonkeys has, in my mind, corrected identified a consensus, but has been a little strong in his efforts to implement it.
Personally, I have Tvx1 to be very obtuse and extremely inconsistent and hypocritical in this discussion. His main argument for inclusion of the column is that it is "educational and informative", an argument he has used consistently for a very long time. He appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of both what purpose the article serves and what Wikipedia articles are meant to convey. These arguments are, from my point of view, fundamentally flawed; the article should not serve as a point of reference for everything regarding the 2014 season; rather, it is a summary of events, and Tvx1 seems to think that we need to educate and inform readers on nearly every minor detail, while only things that effect the season as a whole should be included. He does not understand why it is not relevant and considers none of the arguments me, Bretonbanquet, Prisonermonkeys, QueenCake or anyone else for that matter to be any good and believes that he has easily brushed them off.
Concerning Joetri10, I often appear to be on the opposite sides of discussions with him and I also feel he has been obstructive in this discussion. He has a tendency to not fully read arguments before posting, often fails to take all issues into account. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Note from random volunteer
Thanks everyone for your participation. I currently have two cases open so I cannot take this case at the moment, however someone will likely open this case for you in the next few days. Thanks for being patient. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
2014 Formula One season discussion
I'm really hoping that this can be addressed soon. As has been pointed out, this is the latest in a series of long-running disputes, and I think a lot of people would like it resolved as it will help us establish a precedent for addressing these long-running disputes. Furthermore, if it cannot be resolved here, then I have no idea what the next step is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm more a lurker on the DRN board but I typically get called in to handle disputes that have gone on longer than they should be. I don't think I've ever edited with respect to Formula 1/Grand Prix articles and I do not recall seeing any of your names before. Will you accept my bona fides as a neutral editor here to help you negotiate a solution? Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with that. Although I do not think that there is a happy medium to be found - in terms of content, we either keep the column or we remove it. That said, I think it is important that we resolve this issue here. It is the latest in a string of content disputes that should be simple to implement, but take weeks to resolve. For me, the issue is not so much about the content, but how we go about implementing it. I am disturbed that some editors think they can overturn a consensus by declaring the supporting arguments to be weak; that, to me, is clearly a subjective opinion, given that the majority opinion was strong enough to form a consensus in the first place. I am aware that the DRN does not deal with the behaviour of editors, but I think that resolving this dispute here will establish a precedent here that we can refer back to in future to deal with the problems of a) recognising when a consensus has been formed, b) the appropriate way of implementing it, and c) what to do of you disagree with that consensus - the problems that have been plaguing the Formula 1 pages since the original Sirotkin dispute (yes, I was in the minority on that one, but it has no bearing here). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Still waiting on the remainder of the disputants (Tvx1—Joetri10—Bretonbanquet) to accept my bona fides. Please limit yourself to simple answers and not post great paragraphs of text explanations to simple questions. It means extra time that other editors and myself have to spend time trying to figure out what's going on and in turn slows down the process of negotiating a solution. When I ask a question that has room for elaboration I'll ask for it.Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yep, fine with me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problem for me. Tvx1 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at his contributions, User:Joetri10 has not been active in a week. Just in case he is not aware of the updates here, I am tagging him in this post. I hope that is okay, User:Hasteur. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Fine with me also and thank you Pm. *JoeTri10_ 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've secured acceptance of the credentials as a neutral editor, I'd like to make sure I understand correctly, the point of contention is "What do we put in the Race Title column for each race?". If this is correct a simple yes will suffice. If not please briefly explain what the point if dispute is (as I seem to have missed it). Hasteur (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You can't be blamed for missing it, because it's fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Up to now there have been two Race Title columns, one for the "official race title", often in a foreign language (e.g. "Formula 1 Gran Premio de España Pirelli 2014") and another column for the generic race title in English (e.g. "Spanish Grand Prix"), which links to the article detailing the history of the event. The difference of opinion lies between those wanting to remove the "official race title" column (leaving the generic race title column), and those who wish to retain both columns. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, the 'official race title' features the corresponding sponsorship for the race (depending on year) (e.g. 2014 Formula 1 Santander British Grand Prix) much like the sponsorship for team names (e.g. Williams Martini Racing), something which also has been disputed heavily. Opinion has been a heavy factor on whether this information is relevant before all else whilst forgetting(?) that such concept is often mandatory across all areas on Wikipedia. *JoeTri10_ 21:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the second half of that last sentence (assuming I have understood it correctly). It is not required anywhere to list the title sponsorships of individual events on a season summary; in fact, the full race titles are not used until 2004. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was required but instead something that which should face no question of relevance when partnered with the matter of correct conduct. To ignore is that of ignorance within opinion. Prominence should be irrelevant. It's importance stems from the purpose of being and with that it creates the title, name, event etc. *JoeTri10_ 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You used the word "mandatory", which is a synonym of required, so either you do not understand the meaning of "mandatory" (which I assume you do) or you are wrong there. Also, you did not say it should face no question of relevance before. As for the rest of your replies, the official name has no bearing on the season. It has a bearing on the races (hence the appearances of the full race titles in Grand Prix articles). I don't fully understand what your last sentence is trying to say, but in any case, saying "it's importance stems from the purpose of being" is equivalent to saying "its importance stems from the fact it exists for a reason". That is not a valid point. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- @GyaroMaguus and Joetri10: Please don't use directed language like "You" here. Don't focus on the personalities, focus on the content. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- You used the word "mandatory", which is a synonym of required, so either you do not understand the meaning of "mandatory" (which I assume you do) or you are wrong there. Also, you did not say it should face no question of relevance before. As for the rest of your replies, the official name has no bearing on the season. It has a bearing on the races (hence the appearances of the full race titles in Grand Prix articles). I don't fully understand what your last sentence is trying to say, but in any case, saying "it's importance stems from the purpose of being" is equivalent to saying "its importance stems from the fact it exists for a reason". That is not a valid point. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I never said it was required but instead something that which should face no question of relevance when partnered with the matter of correct conduct. To ignore is that of ignorance within opinion. Prominence should be irrelevant. It's importance stems from the purpose of being and with that it creates the title, name, event etc. *JoeTri10_ 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the second half of that last sentence (assuming I have understood it correctly). It is not required anywhere to list the title sponsorships of individual events on a season summary; in fact, the full race titles are not used until 2004. —Gyaro–Maguus— 21:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, the 'official race title' features the corresponding sponsorship for the race (depending on year) (e.g. 2014 Formula 1 Santander British Grand Prix) much like the sponsorship for team names (e.g. Williams Martini Racing), something which also has been disputed heavily. Opinion has been a heavy factor on whether this information is relevant before all else whilst forgetting(?) that such concept is often mandatory across all areas on Wikipedia. *JoeTri10_ 21:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so this is a layered set of questions
- Should we keep the Official Race Name?
- If so, Should we keep it in the local language?
- If so, Should we list the corporate sponsor of the race?
Do I have it right this time? Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I must point out the irony in some editors arguing that those evil foreign names are unacceptable, but the obviously French expression "Grand Prix" is fine. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: Yes, you have it correct.
- @HiLo48: "Grand Prix" is the fancy name applied to the races. Like encore and déjà vu, it is a French word that has been fully incorporated into the English language. —Gyaro–Maguus— 23:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- There's no irony in it at all. There is no English term for Grand Prix. Nobody has described the foreign names as "evil" or "unacceptable". It would be best if we could remain moderately serious and accurate in our posts. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
T-54/55
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Over the course of the past few months, User:YMB29 has been repeatedly adding some inaccurate information to the T-54/55 article. It's merely one sentence, which I can quote here, concerning tanks in the Angolan Civil War:
"......At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks........"
He has cited a single source for this information, which I have repeatedly challenged with up to ten sources of my own. Nevertheless, the user has refused to engage in constructive or particularly intellectual discussion - demanding I cite information already verified by his own source among other ludicrous matters. He has refused to cite any more sources backing up this inaccuracy, and has done nothing to challenge with facts my assertion that it is nothing more than a hoax with no place on the Wiki, aside from vague accusations of invoking "propaganda" when I offer legitimate citations of my own (his source is itself a book of anecdotes with dubious credibility).
This is a serious problem, because his information directly contradicts all the other sources in the paragraph and leads to disrupted continuity. Furthermore, it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on hoaxes. I have tried to be reasonable, but I'm at the very end of my rope. The disagreement has already come dangerously close to an edit war....and I'm simply unwilling to do any more work for a community member so seemingly irrational and obstinate. Accordingly, I am requesting an authority's take on this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, by the following -
1) Pointing out the disputed information's hoax status. 2) Establishing that there is a conflict of sources. 3) Providing seven sources to the contrary, and offering more if these are unacceptable. 4) Offering to provide page numbers for each of these sources for the relevant citations.
Each of these attempts at intellectual discussion have been amounted to nothing.
How do you think we can help?
The user's response to my attempts at resolution have been -
Accusing my sources of being 'propaganda', despite their established legitimacy especially in comparison to his, refusing to accept - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that my sources contradict his in more ways than one, etc.
I hope that an impartial user with more authority to deal with this unique type of dispute (conflicting sources and verifiability) can reach (and impose) a collective decision for the article.
Summary of dispute by YMB29
I have not edited the article "over the course of the past few months." Before my edits in the last few days, the last time I edited the article was in December, so I don't know what Katangais is talking about.
He has not provided quotes from sources to back up his claims, instead he relies on his own analysis of sources.
The text that I added is directly backed up by a reliable source, but he calls it communist propaganda and a hoax.
It looks like he has trouble understanding wiki policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
Up until now I thought the discussion was going well, but here all of a sudden Katangais started throwing wild accusations at me. And he calls me irrational...
We have been discussing the issues in that article for less than two days. It is way too early for dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
T-54/55 discussion
Part I
Hello, I am the DRN volunteer that will be moderating this case. My understanding is that the dispute involves this sentence:
- At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
Is there a source(s) to verify the content in this sentence? If so, please provide them. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a citation.[1]
- Also, this sentence:
- On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers[42] occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two[43] T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.[38][44]
- There is no source, at least Katangais has not provided any, that directly says that the Cubans manned the tanks in that particular skirmish or that it was the only tank engagement, so the sentence violates WP:OR.
- However, I am not sure if dispute resolution is appropriate now, given the limited discussion on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- There has been significant discussion on the talk page[2] and unless I'm missing something I don't see much progress. I can moderate a discussion here if you like but Katangais and YMB29 if you want a moderated discussion you need to stop making posts on the talk page and bring the discussion here for a fresh start. If discussion doesn't stop on the talk page immediately then I will have no choice but to close this case. So please decide what you want to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- When Katangais opened this request the discussion on the talk page was going on for less than two days, but if that is ok, we can try to resolve the problems here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- There has been significant discussion on the talk page[2] and unless I'm missing something I don't see much progress. I can moderate a discussion here if you like but Katangais and YMB29 if you want a moderated discussion you need to stop making posts on the talk page and bring the discussion here for a fresh start. If discussion doesn't stop on the talk page immediately then I will have no choice but to close this case. So please decide what you want to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why YMB29 wants a source for "Cubans crewing the tanks", as he put it, above. It's his information supported by his source; surely I don't have to verify it? --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am talking about the engagement on 9 November 1987. The one from my source most likely happened in 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Source? --Katangais (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are the one claiming that it was the same engagement as on 9 November 1987, so you are the one who needs to find a source.
- The source I cited does not mention a date, but the website source you deleted says it was in February 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a logical case of WP:SYNTH. You can't assume that the engagement mentioned in the Russian source is the same one from the Cuban source, simply because both cite that 10 Olifant tanks were lost. --Katangais (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- The number of T-55s lost is also the same and so is the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
- However, that does not matter since I am not making the claim in the article, unlike you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds like a logical case of WP:SYNTH. You can't assume that the engagement mentioned in the Russian source is the same one from the Cuban source, simply because both cite that 10 Olifant tanks were lost. --Katangais (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Source? --Katangais (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am talking about the engagement on 9 November 1987. The one from my source most likely happened in 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why YMB29 wants a source for "Cubans crewing the tanks", as he put it, above. It's his information supported by his source; surely I don't have to verify it? --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's take one thing at a time. YMB29 has agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and move the discussion here. Katangais do you also agree to that? Or would you rather I close this case and allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page? Please let me know, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Keithbob, I brought the discussion here to seek an impartial resolution and close it once and for all. I have no desire to prolong anything needlessly by returning to the talk page - where, as you can see, an extensive debate has already been undertaken.
- @YMB29: As it happens that little tidbit may be quite crucial to my perceived conflict of our sources. Can you provide the name of this individual, please? --Katangais (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Part II Fresh start
OK, both parties have agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and instead have a moderated discussion here. Very good. And we have agreed the core of the dispute is limited to the two sentences cited above. Let's start with the first sentence:
- Content: At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
- Source: Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2010). Ветераны локальных войн и миротворческих операций ООН вспоминают [Veterans of Local Wars and UN Peacekeeping Missions Remember] (in Russian). Moscow: Memories. ISBN 978-5-904935-04-7.
YMB29, can you please provide a page number and a quote from the source you've cited above to demonstrate that the source supports the content we are discussing? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is the translation (pages 118-119):
- I remember I learned about a counter-attack, when seven Cuban tanks were destroyed. A lieutenant-colonel sent T-55 tanks into a counter-attack against the South Africans. Six or seven tanks were destroyed. It was some critical defensive moment; the Angolans, I think, fled. He led the counter-attack and died (he was wounded*).
- *It was a Cuban lieutenant-colonel named Hector. He did not die, but received two severe wounds, one of which in the area of the mouth, so later he could hardly speak. The Cuban film about Cuito Cuanavale has a piece about him, and he speaks there himself. In the newspaper Red Star for that year, there was an article about him and his attack... In the counter-attack seven Cuban tanks were knocked out, and only one tank was left with lieutenant-colonel Hector inside having been wounded twice. However, the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing, according to the Cubans, 10 Olifant tanks.
- -YMB29 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Excerpt from the Russian Site Cuban Aviation, which is apparently describing the same engagement:
- On February 14, 1988 the SADF and the UNITA begin the second heavy attack to the Cuito Cuanavale defenses, with forces sized in three SADF and six UNITA battalions, supported by more of 100 armored vehicles of various types, among them 40 Olifants Tanks. By this superiority of forces, they achieve to break the defense of the 59° Angolan Brigade. To cover this place were urgently thrown the unique 8 T-55 Cubans in movement in Cuito, by the command of the lieutenant colonel Héctor Aguilar. They stop the South African, destroying 10 Olifants and 4 armored cars, and losing 6 T-55 (3 by anti-tanks rockets RPG, and 3 by the Olifants). The remainder of the Olifants retires behind march. In this collision die 14 of the 39 Cubans perished in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, but this sacrifice went not in vain, therefore the attack of its T-55 saves the situation of the battle, that already was in crisis. This is the first collision in the war between Olifants and Cubans T-55, and is a victory for these, which would be the norm until the end of the war. March 23 the Olifants support the last attack to Cuito Cuanavale, that finishes with another disaster, when the SADF lost 3 Olifants in minefields and by artillery fire.
- Okay, we have a date: February 14. That gives me more to work with. I need to consult my own sources and find out what exactly was happening on the 14th, if the Olifants were involved, etc. I have a feeling that will go a long way towards clearing up the fog. --Katangais (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wish I had seen "2/14/88" much sooner. New information is coming to the surface.
- Polack states (p. 142): A split attack by UNITA units followed by the 61st Mechanised Infantry Battalion under SADF Commandant Mike Muller and the 4 South African Infantry Battalion made a determined assault on 14 February against the FAPLA 59th Brigade and remnants of 21st Brigade reinforced by other brigades west of the Dala River. After a time, his numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack led by Cuban Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt. The FAPLA lost five tanks but managed to damage a SADF Olifant.
- Hamann states (p. 96): On February 14 1988, in a bitterly fought armour battle, the SADF and UNITA effectively destroyed FAPLA's 59 Brigade, which was heavily supported by Cuban contingents. As a result, most of FAPLA's forces were pinned down in a 30 km square just across the Cuito River from Cuito Cuanavale.
- Bridgland states (p. 196-197): The first Cuban fighting men entered combat in defence of FAPLA's 59th Brigade on 14 February 1988...Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks...but nevertheless, the action in support of A and B Companies ended with five T-54/55s destroyed and one T-55 captured in mint condition with only a few kilometres on the clock. On [pg. 198], he continues: Seventy-five FAPLA dead were counted on the two battlefields and six were taken prisoner. Given the SADF's loss of only seven men killed and two wounded, one Ratel destroyed, one Ratel badly damaged, and an Olifant damaged, the inventory indicates a clear South African victory. But the fact is that the attack was a failure in terms of objectives Colonel Don Ferreira had set - the elimination of 16 Brigade and the cutting off of 21 and 59 Brigades so that they could be destroyed virtually at the SADF's leisure.
- George states (pg. 221-222): Early on 14 February, the attack began with a fierce bombardment of both brigades, allowing 61 Mech and UNITA to manoeuvre into positions exactly between them and then simultaneous attacks...faced with the collapse of his forces, 59 Brigade's commander urgently requested reinforcements, and 3 Tank Battalion was ordered to launch a counter-attack. Seven tanks from the Cuban Tactical Group (under Lieutenant Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt) spearheaded the force as it moved east towards 59 Brigade's position (one breaking down en route). The FAPLA's signal was intercepted by the South Africans, however, and they sent 61 Mech to intercept the tanks, precipitating the first tank battle of the Angolan war. Visibility in the dense bush war was poor and the Cuban tank force - which according to the South Africans, "arrived in a mob", stumbled into a noisy point-blank firefight with the South Africans. The fighting was chaotic, and the Cuban tanks impressed the Olifant commanders with their aggressive (and often suicidal) sallies into the midst of the South African squadron in search of targets. With the range between opposing tanks down to as little as 100 yards, the Cuban commander was forced to keep his tank on the move, and by the end of the day his was the only tank operational (although it had been hit three times). As dusk fell, both sides started to lose communication between their vehicles, and the South Africans started withdrawing. This allowed the Cuban tank commander (who had rammed a tree and camouflaged his tank under the foliage) to collect nine Cuban survivors scattered across the battlefield - six of them badly wounded - and withdraw to 16 Brigade's positions, arriving shortly before dawn. The attack of 14th February was another overwhelming success for the South Africans, driving the FAPLA off the high ground and, following a weak attempt to re-occupy 59 Brigade's positions the next day, the FAPLA withdrew to its last foothold, the Tumpo Triangle.
- Heitman states (pg. 233) in his very lengthy chapter entitled The Attack on 59 Brigade: Almost immediately after the artillery began firing, FAPLA tanks engaged 61 Mech from the west, south, and east. Several of them began manoeuvring very aggressively to attack 61 Mech, and the artillery fire was adjusted to support them. Five of these tanks were shot out by 61 Mech during this fighting. Two more were shot out by 4 SAI; one by an Olifant, another by a Ratel-90....this group of tanks was not very well handled, and they arrived in front of the South Africans "in a mob", so that only the poor visibility in the thick bush saved them from instant destruction. The bush was so thick that some of these tanks were only visible at ten metres. 61 Mech later reported that they had mixed Cuban and FAPLA crews, the commander and the gunner generally being Cubans. At 18h25 61 Mech received artillery and direct fire; one Ratel was hit by a 23mm round which wounded one member of its crew. Unusually, the artillery fire was accurate and was accurately adjusted as the South Africans moved. A second Ratel was hit by 23mm rounds, killing four men and wounding three. Another Ratel was damaged by 130mm shrapnel. 61 Mech now isolated these FAPLA elements with fire and dealt with them. 4 SAI had manoeuvred alongside 61 Mech to support it, and the FAPLA attack soon broke down. Seven T-54/55s, a BTR-60, and three other vehicles were destroyed. Fourteen Cubans were killed in their tanks and about 100 FAPLA infantry were also killed in this clash.
- Obviously I was mistaken about there being only being one tank-on-tank clash in the '87/'88 campaign. I trust these quotes will be helpful. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- These look to be describing the same event, although some of the details are different, like the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
- The main difference is who was more successful on the battlefield.
- However, while saying that it was a victory for the South Africans, both Bridgland and George also say that the Cuban counter-attack saved the situation by preventing the South Africans from cutting off the Angolan units, so in that they agree with the source I quoted above. -YMB29 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your research and discussion points. Now that some new information has been provided is there any bit of compromise or common ground emerging?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't debating whether or not the engagement was a decided success or failure by the SADF/FAPLA - on the whole Cuito Cuanavale was a series of stalemates and pyrrhic victories for both sides. I'm merely concerned with the hardware. In fact, the main gripe I had with his information was the casualty count. YMB29's source claims that 10 Olifants were destroyed by T-55s in the above engagement. As you can see from the quotes I have provided above, none of my sources support this. --Katangais (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- These sources are mostly based on the South African accounts of the battle.
- The Cuban accounts are different, but that is no reason to exclude what they say. -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't debating whether or not the engagement was a decided success or failure by the SADF/FAPLA - on the whole Cuito Cuanavale was a series of stalemates and pyrrhic victories for both sides. I'm merely concerned with the hardware. In fact, the main gripe I had with his information was the casualty count. YMB29's source claims that 10 Olifants were destroyed by T-55s in the above engagement. As you can see from the quotes I have provided above, none of my sources support this. --Katangais (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Keithbob: And here we are back where we started. Now can you see where the disagreement is made? I wanted to exclude the Russian account from the article because it's clearly incorrect, but when I removed it YMB29 accused me of "censoring" information. Yet you see for yourself that I've done my research - an overwhelming number of sources clearly point to its inaccuracy. If we allow this preposterous anecdote to remain up, it's a blatant example of WP:Hoax. --Katangais (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- You can't remove information from a reliable source just because you disagree with it and think it is incorrect, see WP:TRUTH.
- We have to go by what all the reliable sources say, and not only those that represent the South African point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- But see, I don't disagree with it. Heitman, Brigland, George, and Polack do. Your "reliable source" is a book of anecdotes by former Soviet military personnel. And BTW, since when have my sources only represented a South African point of view? --Katangais (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- In general they represent the South African view, and you can't have only those sources in the article.
- The source I quoted contains interviews of people who were there and also notes by historians. You can't dismiss it as a book of anecdotes...
- It is common for certain sources to disagree with other ones. However, in such cases you can't judge which sources are correct and exclude the ones you think are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is a a book of anecdotes as far as the article is concerned - print sources with the appropriate academic research are often much more credible than personal interviews. I can, and have challenged, that publication with sources of my own. But of course that's irrelevant to the likes of you, because any account that disagrees with the Russian one is apparently South African POV. Never mind the fact that my cites include one American and two Englishmen.
- Where's the third, fourth, or even fifth party here? It's obvious that I've successfully challenged that tidbit of nonsense, gone directly to the reliability of his source, and want it removed from the article ASAP, per WP:HOAX. It's also painfully clear that he thinks I'm censoring the article to support POV rather than simply calling out dubious information. It's one sentence. This should have been resolved a week ago. --Katangais (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oscar López Rivera
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Oscar López Rivera is an incarcerated prisoner convicted of crimes including: using force to commit robbery[1], which is considered a violent crime. [2]. Mercy11 continues to insist that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. The available evidence finds that false. Mercy11 continues to revert my edits despite the simple, verifiable data, and using unreliable sources. Other editors such as Lerdthenerd, NickCT, Neosiber, and Froglich have experience similar problems.
We don't discuss conduct here at DRN. Please refrain from doing so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
|
|---|
|
Comment - I'm only very peripherally involved in this debate, and don't have an opinion on the specific content in question. That said, I'd like it noted that a brief review of the article history for Oscar López Rivera immediately brings WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:N questions to mind in relation to User:Mercy11's conduct. I'm thinking this dispute might best be referred to RFC/U. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
My response to MERCY11 is that he ignores WP:BLPCRIME, which sustains that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery.[see US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.] and then I add: which is considered a violent crime. [which is substantiated by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.]
Again, I am trying to keep this simple. Remember, the article now states. López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence. Again this is false, untrue.
MERCY11 claims that this violates WP:SYN putatively because it recreates the "A and B, therefore C" construction referenced in that section. He is committing a logical fallacy. My argument is that A did A1, A1 is entirely equal to B, therefore it can be said that A did B. The example used in WP:SYN differs in that it does not link logical statements like this. It would be like saying: that even if I can source the follow two statements:
- The marathon race in city X is 26.2 miles long.
- 26.2 miles is the identical length as 42 kilometers.
That I could not say The marathon race in city X is 42 kilometers long.
MERCY11 is practicing WP:SYNTHNOT or to quote:
- SYNTH is not an advocacy tool. MERCY11 is using SYNTH to advocate that OLR did not committ violence.
- SYNTH is not presumed that is that people accusing other of synthesis should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. Here's the problem for MERCY11. The first source I use states OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and the second states, robbery is a violent crime. He needs to establish why this is not verified by the sources. The problem is that these facts make his conclusion as presently stated in the article untrue and false.
In addition, I challenge the reliability of MERCY11 sources and his use of biased sources. For example, the title of the source he cites is a newspaper article that claims: Arecibo clamó por la libertad de Oscar (in English: (the city of) Arecibo clamors for the liberty of Oscar). I rarely consider documents that claim that a "city clamors" to be reliable. I think that article is equally in error to claim that he was never accused of violent acts. As I state, he was convicted of using force to commit robbery. The FBI source I quoted described these as armed robberies, but to make things simpler and only use the language of my source (US Department of Justice) I now only use that phrase of using force to commit robbery. However, he was convicted of a violent act.
Again, I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of whether OLR should be released. However, I do not think that should excuse MERCY11 from obscuring facts. And it is a fact, by this mere conviction for robbery that OLR was convicted of a violent crime. Notice that I am not saying seditious conspiracy and interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition to aid in the commission of a felony, two of his other conditions are violent crimes. I do not know if they are classified as violent crimes. However, using force to commit robbery is classified as a violent crime by the United States, and OLR was convicted of this.
Much seems to made of the false claims that OLR never practiced violence, including by the Arecibo newspaper, but as in that article it is made in order to support a clamor for his pardon. It is advocacy. My statements do not advocate an opinion, the just state the facts. (see WP:ASSERT). My challenge to MERCY11 is to establish that the Department of Justice document does not state that OLR was convicted of using force to commit robbery and that this is not indisputably equal in the eyes of the US Justice System (in which OLR lived by choice) to a violent crime.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have altered the citations to reliable sources to two simple reliable sources. I have discussed my changes in the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
The answer here is fairly simple. If OLR was convicted of robbery & robbery is a violent crime, then OLR was convicted of a violent crime. I accept President Clinton's assertion that FALN members were not convicted on causing "bodily harm or killing", but the violent crime conviction stands. This case has generated some frenzied partisanship. I am only interested in the assertion of this skeletal fact. I am fairly certain that outside intervention will be needed to resolve this dispute.
Summary of dispute by Mercy11
The editor was reverted because he violated WP:BLP. None of his citations (US Parole Commission; Bureau of Justice Statistics) state what he is trying to push HERE, that "While not causing bodily harm through any of his convictions, Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery, a violent crime" . The issue here is his obsession with linking Oscar Lopez Rivera (OLR) with committing a "violent crime" and qualifying the subject's biography with the words "violent crime" when his sources do not use those words. The editor was not content with stating that "Lopez Rivera was convicted of armed robbery" but he then goes on to editorialize that, with the dangling add-on "a violent crime." THIS source, among the other 4 given in the article, states "nunca fue acusado por actos violentos" (Goggle translation: "was never charged with violent acts"). To achieve a re-write of history, the editor resorted to OR via WP:SYN, which is best appreciated in his words:
"the references used to substantiate the statements in the article...fail to address the simple, straightfoward statements I have set forth:
OLR was convicted of use of force to commit robbery.
Use of force to commit robbery is a violent crime.
OLR was convicted of a violent crime."
Per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". The editor no only failed to do that, but also -conveniently- insists in removing HERE sourced material that states just the opposite of his original research, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. If the editor's claim that the subject committed "a violent crime" was the case, then, per WP:V, "some [WP:RS] would probably already have reported it so". Per WP:BLP, "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". As such, he was reverted. Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sarason
Oscar Lopez Rivera was not charged with armed robbery or violence. He was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the United States. The court transcripts and the court’s own written opinion said this, precisely and with no ambiguity. Here is the citation for this case: U.S. v. Oscar Lopez et al., No. 86 CR 513 (N.D. Ill.).
With respect to secondary sources, you can read this article in the Huffington Post, which states that Lopez Rivera “has already served 32 years in prison for the charge of seditious conspiracy.” Nowhere in this article, does it state that Rivera was charged with armed robbery or personal violence. [3]
In addition, there is the book Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, edited by Luis Nieves Falcon (Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2013). In this book, the foreword is written by Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Here is what he wrote:
- “Oscar Lopez Rivera is imprisoned for the “crime” (his quotation marks) of seditious conspiracy: conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial justice…My Nobel Peace laureate colleagues Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina and I expressed our deep concern about the highly irregular and tainted parole hearing that had just taken place. Testimony was permitted at that hearing regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing in the first place.” See: Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance, p. iv.
You thus have the case itself (I provided the case citation) and two secondary sources. In one of them, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, supported by two more Nobel Peace Prize winners, specifically refers to a "tainted parole hearing” in which Lopez Rivera was confronted with charges “regarding crimes which Lopez Rivera was never accused of committing.” Sarason (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oscar López Rivera discussion
Thanks Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) and Mercy11 (talk · contribs) for participating. Technically I should wait for Sarason (talk · contribs) to reply, but I am making an exception because the discussion seems to be underway. I will notify this user via talk page. I have moved the comments of Rococo1700 to the opening section of the dispute for clarity. In future, please do not state anything in the discussion section of a dispute before a volunteer has opened the discussion, as it creates confusion. Let me begin with some preliminaries. (1) DRN is meant for discussion about content and not conduct. (2) Assume good faith on the part of all participants. (3) Be civil in everything you say and (4) Please adjust to the pace of DRN. We the volunteers prefer to do some research so that we can address all parties in a comprehensive manner. I have gone through the comments made here and the talk page and the way I understand things, Mercy11 is opposed to the inclusion of the words violent crimes in the description of the conviction of Oscar López Rivera and is accusing Rococo1700 of WP:SYNTH for doing so. At the outset, let me clarify, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury and will focus merely on the inclusion of the content. I have asked for comments from editors of a Wiki Project Criminal Biography in the talk page of the article. As these editors have experience working on such biographies, lets wait for their comments before deciding the next course of action. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have waited for almost two days but have recieved no inputs from the WikiProject Criminal Biography Team. Although this does not rule out any future involvements, lets get started. I note that Sarason (talk · contribs) has not replied to the request on his talk page. Technically the statement quoted by Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) (i.e. Oscar López Rivera is convicted of violent crimes) has to be removed from the article, not because of WP:SYNTH but because of WP:PRIMARY. Court documents such as court rulings, US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011, Department of Justice document etc. are all Primary sources of information. Reliable secondary and tertiary sources include books, magazines, journals etc. Rococo do you have any reliable secondary sources that say that Oscar López Rivera was convicted of violent crimes? --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Sarason (talk · contribs) for your inputs. Rococo1700 (talk · contribs) we now have a reliable source [3] which states (Oscar Lopez Rivera).. is imprisoned for the “crime” of seditious conspiracy, again the quote is from the original text. I tried looking up the subject and found another [4] source which says that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with conspiracy to overthrow the government of US by force, but again does not include the term violent crime in its description of charges. A book by Joy James [5] adds armed robbery and lesser charges to conspiracy charges but does not include violent crime anywhere in its description. All three authors focus more on the conspiracy angle and stay clear from concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime. This list would not include the Huffington Post article[6]which states López Rivera was convicted on conspiracy charges and was not linked to any deaths or injuries related to the bombings (emphasis is mine). Concluding that Osacar Lopez Rivera is charged with violent crime based on material which is a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) is either Original Research (WP:OR) or Synthesis (WP:SYNTH) depending on interpretation, but is not supported by the vast majority of published material out there. Would there be anything I missed, or you would like to highlight otherwise? --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
References
References
- ^ US Parole Commission, statement on denial of Parole in 2011.
- ^ Beaureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice.
- ^ Osacar Lopez Rivera (1 February 2013). Oscar Lopez Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance. PM Press. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-1-60486-833-3.
- ^ Hal Marcovitz (February 2000). Terrorism. Infobase Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-7910-5264-8.
- ^ Joy James (20 July 2007). Warfare in the American Homeland: Policing and Prison in a Penal Democracy. Duke University Press. p. 159. ISBN 0-8223-3923-4.
- ^ Marentes, Luis A. "On Questions of Status: Puerto Rico's Relation to the U.S. and Oscar López Rivera's Fate". http://www.huffingtonpost.com/. Retrieved 12 April 2014.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher=
Kvenland
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Leavitt Bulldog
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Ss 051 (talk · contribs)
- Freedombulls (talk · contribs)
- Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The reason for the renaming of the breed from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog is in question. One side has made the statement in top header that the breed was being modified because the original creator (David Leavitt) did not like the direction that the breed had taken. The other side disagrees that this was the case and has provided a quote from David Leavitt regarding the reason for the name change in the article, as well as a statement in the Talk section showing that David Leavitt actually approved of the current condition of the breed at the time he renamed it, as well as a direct statement by him that he was not changing the breed (its conformation) but simply the name in order to dissociate the dogs from the more commonly, and inappropriately, used OEB title for many of the Alternative Bulldogs that use it. There has been no response from the first party in the talk section, despite it being referenced in the edits in order to get their attention.
This is actually relevant to the Genetic Background section as well, as the current article makes it sound like a new breed was founded in 2005, while at the same time stating that the dogs can still be registered as OEBs with the United Kennel Club (which is an obvious contradiction).
"The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed. It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s, and bred to OEB’s, who are creating two breeds out of one. It would be in the best interest of genetic diversity to allow dual registry. Dual registry is in the best interest of the dogs."
If the LBA has changed their minds and wants to change the breed I can simply compromise by having them taken down from the UKC website. I'm the one who had them put there in the first place anyway... Also note that 2 of the 3 dogs back on the Olde English Bulldogge page were actually produced by LBA breeders.Ss 051 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Added comments to the Talk section as well as providing direct quotes, in both the article and Talk, to support the edits made
How do you think we can help?
I think a little mediation on how to resolve the difference would be appreciated. I have no problem compromising, so long as the statements that wind up being made have some degree of evidence. I was involved with the breed at the time all this happened and have been since, so I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt) and outright falsehoods without a hint of evidence are... tiresome...
Summary of dispute by Freedombulls
User:Freedombulls has communicated to me by email that he doesn't intend to participate further in the EN wikipedia and has asked that his user page be deleted, which has happened. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sminthopsis84
There are several aspects to this dispute, it has become confusing, and is moving too fast. The current main thrust seems to be centred on a quote from this page [4]: "The LB and OEB are clearly the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue. The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed." User:Ss 051 with this edit says "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." I would say that that is a misinterpretation.
There are two clubs, the LBA and the OEBKC, both breeding dogs descended from the "Olde English Bulldogge" breed developed in the 1970s by David Leavitt. More context from the same page is: "When he came back to the breed in 2005 he found that people had begun to try to change his breed into a bullier more English Bulldog look. He knew this was not good for the breed and formed the Leavitt Bulldog Association to further his dream. When he did this he changed the name from Olde English Bulldogge to Leavitt Bulldog …". In the quote that User:Ss 051 is using, I would say that the OEB referred to is the original breed that David Leavitt developed in the 1970s, not the OEBKC dogs (the other club). Thus "He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog." is a mistaken impression. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Leavitt Bulldog discussion
Hello everyone, I am a volunteer with DRN and I would like to welcome everyone to this discussion. Before we begin, some preliminaries. First, we the volunteers at DRN are neither Judge nor Jury. Secondly, please respect all editors and maintain good faith and finally, DRN's are about content and not conduct. If we OK so far, then lets proceed. Firstly, I have moved the comments of Ss 051 (talk · contribs) to the opening section of the discussion, because they belong there. In future please don't add content to the discussion section of a dispute, before it has been opened by a volunteer because it confuses us. I also note that Freedombulls (talk · contribs) has not yet participated. I would normally wait for his comments but then again I see that the discussion has already started, so his comments later would be welcome to this discussion. He has been notified of this DRN in his talk page. When I went to the talk page of the article I could make out that this topic has not been discussed there. I do see a section called History created on the 8th of April, but other editors have not had a chance to answer the comments yet. Please understand that Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page. As begining I would suggest all editors to first discuss the issue on the talk page and wait for a consensus. Would that be OK?--Wikishagnik (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- May I leave you a comment? These issues were discussed on various talk pages, mine, Sagaciousphil's, Tikuko's - and is a bit scattered all around Wiki talk page archives. Since quite a long time. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine by me Wikishagnik as I have just realized the extent of some of what I consider to be misinformation that has been left on the Talk page for this article. To your point, there is quite a bit of info that likely needs to be provided. What I'm not sure of is whether or not that misinformation was intentional.Ss 051 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Hafspajen (talk · contribs) and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) for responding. I have read your comments on your own and the article talk pages, and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) I don't disagree with what you have said. However, in good faith I would like to make some observations that may or may not be acceptable, but I believe is the root of the confusion. From your comments such as I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt)... and It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s...(emphasis is by me) that drive me to conclude that in your personal life you are involved in some or other way with Leavitt Bulldogs. That leads to a problematic scenario called conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT) between being a Wikipedia editor and being a participant in the events surrounding the subject of an article (as per your own comments). While their is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits such edits and editors, the policy was designed specifically to ensure neutrality in all articles (WP:NPOV) by deterring incidents where the private and personal passions of an editor clouds the overall objectivity of an article in general, and Wikipedia in particular. Even if we assume complete good faith, would it be reasonable for me to expect you to accept a POV that is completely against your POV, even if it is suggested with reliable source etc.? For example, if I was to suggest a statement like while some authors consider Leavitt Buldog to be a separate breed[1], some others have used the terms interchangeably with OEB[2][3], would you be OK with that? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that due to your personal passions and invlolvement, would feel such a statement to be wrong? Please understand that nothing above was intended to be a personal attack. I am only trying to point out that Wikipedia is neither a forum for discussion (WP:NOTFORUM) nor a Journal (WP:NOTJOURNAL) where original ideas are meant to be discussed and then presented as right or wrong. Any discussion on the talk page of an article or in DRN should focus on what content can be added to an article based on reliable (WP:RELIABLE) sources that make the article encyclopedic and neutral. I am not even entertaining the discussion about dual registration of your dogs because that is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia or its articles.--Wikishagnik (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Have I said that? Don't really remember that. Hafspajen (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Hafspajen (talk · contribs) and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) for responding. I have read your comments on your own and the article talk pages, and Ss 051 (talk · contribs) I don't disagree with what you have said. However, in good faith I would like to make some observations that may or may not be acceptable, but I believe is the root of the confusion. From your comments such as I am a first-hand witness (as well as having had many discussions with David Leavitt)... and It is those who would not allow our dogs to be dual registered as OEB’s...(emphasis is by me) that drive me to conclude that in your personal life you are involved in some or other way with Leavitt Bulldogs. That leads to a problematic scenario called conflict of interest (WP:CONFLICT) between being a Wikipedia editor and being a participant in the events surrounding the subject of an article (as per your own comments). While their is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits such edits and editors, the policy was designed specifically to ensure neutrality in all articles (WP:NPOV) by deterring incidents where the private and personal passions of an editor clouds the overall objectivity of an article in general, and Wikipedia in particular. Even if we assume complete good faith, would it be reasonable for me to expect you to accept a POV that is completely against your POV, even if it is suggested with reliable source etc.? For example, if I was to suggest a statement like while some authors consider Leavitt Buldog to be a separate breed[1], some others have used the terms interchangeably with OEB[2][3], would you be OK with that? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that due to your personal passions and invlolvement, would feel such a statement to be wrong? Please understand that nothing above was intended to be a personal attack. I am only trying to point out that Wikipedia is neither a forum for discussion (WP:NOTFORUM) nor a Journal (WP:NOTJOURNAL) where original ideas are meant to be discussed and then presented as right or wrong. Any discussion on the talk page of an article or in DRN should focus on what content can be added to an article based on reliable (WP:RELIABLE) sources that make the article encyclopedic and neutral. I am not even entertaining the discussion about dual registration of your dogs because that is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia or its articles.--Wikishagnik (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is fine by me Wikishagnik as I have just realized the extent of some of what I consider to be misinformation that has been left on the Talk page for this article. To your point, there is quite a bit of info that likely needs to be provided. What I'm not sure of is whether or not that misinformation was intentional.Ss 051 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikishagnik, I would actually be fine with the statement you proposed above provided those references actually make those assertions. I've considered the conflict of interest and to be frank I don't think I fall into the problem. I have been involved as Registrar for the OEBKC since Jan of 2006, for which I collect no pay or priveledge. I do not breed dogs, nor am I involved financially in anything club- or dog-related. I consider myself to fall more into the category of subject matter expert. Whether anyone wants to consider the Leavitt Bulldog a separate breed from the original OEB bloodlines they separated from isn't the point and doesn't matter to me (and I doubt very much the LBA would want to make that assertion, as it grants them nothing but costs them quite a bit of legitimacy, no small part coming from the fact that it is completely, outrageously and verifiably false), but the reason for them splitting in the first place very much IS the point. This latter has been documented on the internet and the statements that have been made in past versions of the Leavitt Bulldog page are simply not in agreement with the evidence. Same with the Genetic Background section. The original OEB bloodlines aren't even referenced, and if that was intentional, if they simply wanted to go back to the very earliest foundation, then why not list the Bull Mastiff and Amer. Pitt Bull Terrier breeds that were used? A short list of inaccurate statements that have, or still do, exist within the article are:
- That the LBA is one of the Parent Clubs for the OEB with the United Kennel Club
- That the Leavitt Bulldog was renamed/created because the original Leavitt bloodlines diverged or were looked unfavorably upon by David Leavitt
- That the LB breed is comprised of English Bulldog, Continental Bulldog, Hermes Bulldog and American Bulldog
- Wikishagnik, I would actually be fine with the statement you proposed above provided those references actually make those assertions. I've considered the conflict of interest and to be frank I don't think I fall into the problem. I have been involved as Registrar for the OEBKC since Jan of 2006, for which I collect no pay or priveledge. I do not breed dogs, nor am I involved financially in anything club- or dog-related. I consider myself to fall more into the category of subject matter expert. Whether anyone wants to consider the Leavitt Bulldog a separate breed from the original OEB bloodlines they separated from isn't the point and doesn't matter to me (and I doubt very much the LBA would want to make that assertion, as it grants them nothing but costs them quite a bit of legitimacy, no small part coming from the fact that it is completely, outrageously and verifiably false), but the reason for them splitting in the first place very much IS the point. This latter has been documented on the internet and the statements that have been made in past versions of the Leavitt Bulldog page are simply not in agreement with the evidence. Same with the Genetic Background section. The original OEB bloodlines aren't even referenced, and if that was intentional, if they simply wanted to go back to the very earliest foundation, then why not list the Bull Mastiff and Amer. Pitt Bull Terrier breeds that were used? A short list of inaccurate statements that have, or still do, exist within the article are:
Ss 051 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Could we deal with one matter at a time, please? I don't understand the problem with "That the LBA is one of the Parent Clubs for the OEB with the United Kennel Club". This noticeboard entry posted by David Leavitt in August 2013, states "As you can see the LBA and OEBKC were both approved as the parent clubs of the OEB.". Is there some technical definition of "parent club" that needs to be brought in to understand this matter? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- That was per a letter dated July 2007, before the breed officially entered into the CDHPR in August of 2008. Since then the LBA has had no affiliation with the CDHPR/UKC. They were trying to state on this page that they were now a Parent Club because the UKC site lists LBA paperwork as being recognized. Being a registry (which issues registration paperwork such as the LBA does) is not the same as being a Parent Club (which provides direction to the registry for their breed).Ss 051 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
A lot of changes were made but let me be clear i did a lot work on the Wikipedia page.
But I never said we were wanting to be involved with the UKC.
This was my text not more nothing less I had nothing to do with the changes that’s why I left because of this ongoing war.
Original text by freedomdulls: Those breeders still working from Leavitt's original ideas were invited to join the new Leavitt Bulldog Association. The LBA and its members are dedicated to maintain and improve the health, temperament and working ability of the breed by careful selective breeding. The association provides a registry service and plans to maintain a stud book. After a rebuttal from the United Kennel Club, the association chose to go it's own way, without recognition from the kennel club. This independence means that the association members remain free to breed in out crosses when needed to maintain healthy genetic characteristics.
You all can see no where I stated we want to be recognized by the UKC.
Again I’m out because of all this rewriting that has done.
Sminthopsis84 did a wonderful job with the page.
But after april 5 Ss_051 start changing a lot of good work.
Look at the changes from the history part until April 10 it stated that the Leavitt Bulldog was a part OEB but it was changed by someone and Ss051 start saying we were in hiding history.
This is my one and only writing
Good luck to you all
Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Barry, but the
quality of the workis what is in question. The graphic in the Talk section in particular showing the differences between IOEBA, LBA and OEBKC; did you honestly think that was representative of the 3 groups? You should know by now that none of the LBA breeders in the US have dogs with the type of head you listed under LBA (only the crossbred DeWinter dogs that were never recognized prior to 2006), and the OEBKC dog you show was actually produced by an LBA breeder (the Courvilles at LGK). Even if you go back and look at the picture of David Leavitt with Tweed[4] (who David has called his "perfect" dog) you'll notice that his head looks nothing at all like the one you used to support your argument of a difference between the LBA and OEBKC dogs. Much of the article was inaccurate and based on poor information.Ss 051 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)- OOPS, no personal attacks. Let's stay cool. (THE perSsonal mentor - for the moment). Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ss 051 (talk · contribs), Sminthopsis84 (talk · contribs) and Freedombulls (talk · contribs) for participating. I have gone through the comments above and unfortunately there isn't much, we the volunteers of a DRN can do about this situation. (1) This whole discussion seems to be a debate between members (or registrars) of LBA and United Kennel Club and while there is nothing stopping such individuals from editing on Wikipedia, it certainly does not mean that they can argue their differences (WP:BATTLEGROUND) of opinion on Wikipedia. (2) Although I am not questioning the veracity of the sources (WP:V) and opinions, there remains the question of good faith amongst the editors (WP:GOODFAITH). This situation is certainly not being helped with the levels of hostility I see here amongst editors. (3) Finally, we the volunteers of DRN are neither judge nor jury, nor is Wikipedia a forum to discuss alternate points of views and reward the victor (WP:NOTFORUM), nothing discussed here may have any impact on the ongoing dispute between the two teams of breeders. DRN's are aimed at consensus based on discussion about content, which in turn will involve a little give and take from all parties and lots of good faith about each others opinion and intent. Since we are all aiming for a consensus, which does not mean a solution everbody will be delighted about, but just a solution everyone can live with, can we think of a compromise solution that can satisfy all parties?--Wikishagnik (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- OOPS, no personal attacks. Let's stay cool. (THE perSsonal mentor - for the moment). Hafspajen (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Barry, but the
References
References
- ^ Marlene Zwettler (7 February 2013). The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier. epubli. p. 22. ISBN 978-3-8442-3922-5.
- ^ Phil Maggitti (2009). Bulldogs. Barron's Educational Series. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7641-9653-9.
- ^ Rescue Ink (17 September 2009). Rescue Ink: Tough Guys on a Mission to Keep Our Animals Safe. Penguin Group US. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-101-13641-6.
- ^ http://www.freewebs.com/lbaorg/
Rodeo Drive
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Talk page discussion has continued. Recommend further engagement between editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page, 10-11 April 2014: [5][6].
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Lightbreather (talk · contribs)
- Ianmacm (talk · contribs)
- Gaijin42 (talk · contribs)
- Aoidh (talk · contribs)
- Drmies (talk · contribs)
- Monty845 (talk · contribs)
- North8000 (talk · contribs)
- AzureCitizen (talk · contribs)
- Justanonymous (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
On this article there are a handful of editors (Ianmacm, Gaijin42, Aoidh) who insist that the words "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" must not be used in the lead. I have had similar disputes on other articles. Overall, I have probably had the same dispute with more than a dozen editors who take the same or a similar stand: that these words, or close variations of, are not real, but simply anti-gun POV. (Please read the most recent discussions' links at top of this notice/request.)
To the best of my knowledge they are all pro-gun editors, who also, again to the best of my knowledge, are a significant majority among active editors of gun-related pages. (Not everyone I've included as "involved" is pro-gun, but all have been involved in discussions re: the disputed words on the article in question.)
I would like to start an RfC re: the use of these words in Wikipedia articles, but I would like to involve as wide an array of editors as possible - not just WP:GUNS editors.
Other articles on which these words have been repeatedly disputed and effectively banned from regular use, as they These words are regularly used by WP:V WP:RS. Other articles where this has been an issue: Assault weapon, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Gun control, Gun laws in the United States by state, Gun politics in the U.S.
The primary objective of this notice/request is not to address any one editor's behavior on any one article, but to get help in crafting RfCs - one about assault weapon and assault weapons ban, and close variations, another about high-capacity magazine and high-capacity magazine ban, and close variations - to put to as wide an array of editors as possible.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
First BRD, then talk - citing lots of sources - then an "unbalanced" tag (which was promptly removed and called an "attention seeking" drive-by).
How do you think we can help?
Help, please, to draft, place, and publicize RfCs. (Place them under a non- WP:GUNS page/project. History, law, media, politics?)
Summary of dispute by Ianmacm
I am not a gun expert, but agree with other editors that the terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are unacceptably vague. They have been used to mean various things, which means that it is better to stick to more precise language. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed to "ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[7] This is easy to understand and accurate, which is why it is such a puzzle that Lightbreather seems obsessed with adding the much vaguer terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" to articles. This appears to have become something of a personal crusade for Lightbreather, complete with an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it becomes clear that consensus is against him/her on this matter. The comments at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting show that there is a consensus against the terms that Lightbreather seems to want to add to multiple articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, the description of me as a "pro-gun editor" illustrates why Lightbreather seems to have missed the point by failing to assume good faith. I am British and have never owned an air pistol, let alone a gun which could kill thirty people in a few minutes. All of the comments opposing Lightbreather have made the point that his/her pet terms are vague. This is the key issue, not being pro- or anti-gun.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. As for AGF, I do it at first always with editors I've not worked with before, and with editors I know on new edits and discussions. Also, one doesn't need to own a gun to be pro-gun, just as one doesn't need a uterus to edit for or against abortion. Also, there are many people who own guns who are pro-control... but, again, that's not what my notice/request is about. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Gaijin42
Summary of dispute by Aoidh
Oh boy...so because I disagree with Lightbreather, I'm automatically a "pro-gun" editor? I am not a member of WP:GUNS, didn't even know that was a thing until I read it here. To my knowledge I only very, very rarely edit gun-related articles at all (the only exception is removing redlinked companies from AR-15, but that's not a "pro-gun" thing, it's a WP:WTAF issue...does that also make me a "pro-Backhoe loader editor" as well?). Putting such an emphasis on calling anyone who disagrees a "pro-gun editor" makes it seem like their opinion has little value and can therefore be discounted, but since everyone who disagrees with Lightbreather is automatically "pro-gun", only those who agree with them should be listened to? That's absurd. I am not "pro-gun", I am however in favor of concise wording in an article, that is my issue with it and that is what I pointed out. Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related, so this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "they have an opinion on guns so what they say shouldn't count" comes across as a little hypocritical. I don't appreciate Lightbreather's remarks and accusations and I have nothing further to say regarding this issue. - Aoidh (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I wrote to Ianmacm, I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. I do edit gun-related articles, but not exclusively. I do so because I believe that a lot of the gun-related articles are, if not blatantly pro-gun POV, than subtly so based on balance or incompleteness. This may be simple oversight or it may be intentional, but that doesn't matter. When I try to edit, I am usually pushed away by "consensus" arguments similar to the one I got on the Sandy Hook article: old and/or weak consensus by a handful of editors. I believe addressing these two terms on a wider scale could help with some of that battleground behavior. I am not trying to wipe-out pro-gun points, I am trying to address balance and completeness issues. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." Your commentary is not needed here, so stop replying to every single person who comments. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of "they disagree with me so they must be pro-gun and therefore can be ignored and it isn't a real consensus" is going to see you blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia; if you're really trying to balance Wikipedia articles it's your behavior that is harming any chance of that, not "pro-gun editors". Saying that getting your way would could help "with some of that battleground behavior" is absurd; you ceasing your battleground behavior would stop the battleground behavior. From what I've seen the issue is you (at least at this article talk page). The content is not the issue here, your behavior in response to not liking the discussion is the issue, trying to shift the focus away from that is failure to accept what the actual issue is. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Drmies
Summary of dispute by Monty845
Summary of dispute by North8000
I don't know what is going on here. I think I've made zero edits on the article in the last year on one passing comment there on the the topic at hand in the last year there. "Assault weapon" (unlike "assault rifle") is a fluid political term, not an actual type of firearm. Statements otherwise should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. So wording on the order of "define certain firearms as assault weapons and ban them" is proper, "ban assault weapons" is not. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dear North, I apologize. I didn't include you here to question your behavior, but for your help. You were in a discussion that another editor cited as a source of past consensus, that's all. The last time I had a dispute about words, after the talk-page discussion went poorly, I started an RfC. I received some flak for choosing that option as the next step. This time, I thought I would start first with this process, that's all. I want to start an RfC, but I know that how they're worded, where they're placed, and how they're publicized is important. Since these words keep coming up again and again in gun-related articles, I want help crafting, placing, and publicizing the RfCs. I am reaching out to editors who've discussed these before for help - that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by AzureCitizen
If the desired outcome is to have an RfC, the simplest solution is to work out a wording for that on the Talk Page and just do it. I don't think anyone here would have opposed that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Justanonymous
-- I have never commented on this and I do not know why I am named. I do not know why I am being included (or targeted) in this, aside from the fact that perhaps there is an ARBCOM on gun control which lightbreather is fully aware of????? I believe this is terribly unfair and unjust to me on the part of Lightbreather, to attempt to bait me into this argument when I have very clearly never commented on these terms here on this article. The last time I edited this article, to the very best of my memory, was to edit the timelines of the first responders where I added a table with the times from the editors and to include the names of the defenders who died valiantly trying to defend the school. Lightbreather, could you very please (and I'm being very polite here under extreme duress from you) articulate where specifically where I "Justanonymous" have attempted to "stop" or "restrict" you (specifically) from using the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine" in the LEDE against "you" (specifically), in this (specific) article? Please be very specific with difs please.............. Otherwise, I will expect a "full" apology from you here AND on my talk page -- Otherwise, I will be forced to report you for personal harassment to appropriate oversight groups if you are engaging in these activities against others. Please be specific.....this is extremely serious in my mind. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't include you to upset you. I am looking for editors to help resolve the dispute. In the discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page, another editor provided a link to a past discussion "with previous consensus on this matter." You were involved in that discussion, so that's why I included you here. Not everyone I listed is involved in this particular dispute, but some have expressed opinions in other discussions that were brought up in this dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with your motives given the impending ARBCOM and your activities there. I cannot and do not take your activities as "good faith", sorry and I do not wish to participate here given the ARBCOM impending decision.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wow that's a very significant rewrite on the intro to this DRN! That said, it's still a very one sided DRN that seeks to make the use of certain politically charged phrases admitted by getting more people to weigh in just because Lightbreather happens to think that the editors of WP:GUN are inherently biased??? It's kindof like saying that we don't like the word "stomata" used by botanists in plant articles and then issuing a DRN to have pastry cooks weigh in for their input?! I think it's terribly unfair to label WP:GUN editors "pro-gun" or to use other incendiary phrases and overly broad categorizations here on the Wiki and I think Lightbreather owes that community an apology for her mis-structuring of the initial DRN.
- At the end of the day, the WP:GUN editors are the ones who have been editing firearms related articles because they're the ones that understand these terms, the firearms themselves, the ammunition, and technical capabilities of certain firearms. Their editing is to be commended for the countless high quality articles they have created and maintain. When a gun related crime occurs, yes it's generally the WP:GUNs group that provides technical editing to articles - an invaluable contribution. We cannot and should not demonize all WP:GUN editors. It's terribly unfair.
- In my case, I made a 4 word edit 18 months ago agreeing that we should not use incendiary phrases when neutral language is available. For better or worse, the phrases "assault weapon", and "high capacity magazine" are politically charged phrases. These phrases are not in the dictionary and there are vast arguments in Wikipedia on these terms. Why would we want to make the encyclopedia more polarized by using these phrases when we can convey the exact same meaning using politically neutral language. Let's use neutral language. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion
ITN
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | As it clearly says at the top of this page, "this noticeboard is for content disputes only". This is a user conduct dispute. Please go to WP:DR and follow the instructions for resolving user conduct disputes. Also, the fact that multiple editors ignored the big red "Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread." leads me to believe that it is likely that they would have refused to follow other instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Wikipedia:MOS
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This isn't really the kind of dispute that DRN handles well I suggest continuing discussion on the talk page, and if that does not resolve the issue, filing an RfC to determine what the community consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|