Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

– 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

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed in talk for months.

How do you think we can help?

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

Opening comments by Aprock

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

Opening comments by The Devil's Advocate

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

Opening comments by ArtifexMayhem

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

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

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

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

Opening comments by 84.61.181.253

Talk:Race and genetics discussion

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

I am now opening this up for discussion. Sorry for the delay; I wanted to make sure I had time to give this my full attention.

Possibly related pages:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Human genetic clustering

Race and genetics

Race and health

Ethnicity and health

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by The Devil's Advocate, I strongly disagree on the argument of cherry picking. If you look through "The Grasshopper's Tale", Dawkins goes completely out of the way to criticize Lewontin. It's not like it's a single line that's being taking out of context. Dawkins goes into great detail to explain why Lewontin is wrong and Edwards is right repeatedly through several pages and cites specific examples. From pg 406-410 in "The Ancestor's Tale". Just like Edwards, Dawkins does agree with Lewontin in that there is more variation within racial groups than in between racial groups but Dawkins makes it very clear that Lewontin is wrong to suggest that this means race has "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance".

I'm more than willing and welcome the discussion on how best to summarize Dawkins criticism of Lewontin in accordance with WP:NPOV but unfortunately we're unable to even have such a discussion because of the constant attempt and assertion that Dawkins doesn't belong in the article at all. Despite the fact that Dawkins goes into such painstaking detail and highlights specific examples through several pages to explain arguments by Lewontin and Edwards. Dawkins' argument and criticism of Lewontin should belong in a subsection entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism”.

I would also like to note that Dawkins position on Lewontin has existed in Race and Genetics for years without dispute and currently exists in Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy without dispute. I would certainly welcome the discussion on what the most appropriate way to summarize Dawkins position on Lewontin is. But to assert that Dawkins argument on Lewontin doesn't belong in the article at all? This seems so absurd. BlackHades (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing by DRN volunteer here; after this came up the other day I skimread my way through The Grasshoppers Tail (Though I have read the chapter and book in its entirety previously). I mostly agree with Black Hades / The Devil's Advocate summary of the topic. Essentially Dawkin's point is that races are very similar, but also that race is an important indicator for specific traits (other than superficial exterior changes). Dawkins uses examples such as if you were to pick a running team from the fastest runners in the world, its going to almost definately be an all-african team. (Though other examples definately exist such as lactose intolerance, etc.). Just my 2c worth. I might offer some further comments on the topic at some point, but Guy Macon will be taking the lead here. -- Nbound (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

It's worth observing here that the article is Race and genetics, not Lewontin's Fallacy. To the extent that Dawkin's views merit inclusion here, it's his views on race and genetics which are relevant not his views on a literal interpretation of Lewontin's claims. That the later is being pushed into the article without consideration of the former is a classic example of the sort of misuse of sources that was rife in WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism". So anything in this subsection should be specifically related to that point. If you feel Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics should be included elsewhere in the article, that would be a completely separate topic of discussion. But as far as the subsection "Lewontin's argument and criticism", only statements specifically regarding Lewontin should be in this section which includes Dawkins. There's no reason to omit Dawkins here. BlackHades (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics as "a completely separate topic of discussion" is a sufficient illustration of the cherry picking that's going on. There's not really much more to discuss. aprock (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

It's even more interesting than that; the majority of the trop long-distance runners come from three mountainous districts beside the Rift Valley: Nandi in Kenya, and Arsi and Shewa in Ethiopia.[1][2] On the other hand, we do need to recognize that there have historically been attempts to use pseudoscience to "prove" the superiority of whichever race the "prover" belongs to. The movie "Django Unchained" has a classic example of a racist slave owner using phrenology as a pseudoscientific and self-serving justification for slavery. Obviously nobody here holds such a position, but we need to watch to make sure that such discredited ideas -- or the equally discredited idea that there are zero differences between groups of human beings -- haven't subtly influenced otherwise reliable sources.

Getting back to the issue at hand, let's examine the "cherry picking" claim. I always like to try to get each side to understand the other, For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? Try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank Nbound for taking the time to reread the chapter and offer his input. In regards to Guy Macon's suggestion, I would say the best reason for the position opposing mine seem to be that Dawkins' position can be misinterpreted by readers. Dawkins, along with Edwards, does agree with Lewontin that the variation within race is far greater than between races. Which is true and this is essentially universally accepted among scientists today. Humans as a species are certainly much more homogeneous than other species. The best reason for opposing the addition of Dawkins' statement appear to be the fear that this fact may get lost with readers if we highlight the small in between differences that exists. BlackHades (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled on this. I'm an uninvolved editor that is familiar with the text in question, and I have to agree with Aprock and Artifex. The quoted material, when taken out of context as it is here presented, does overstate Dawkins' position. The disagreement between Dawkins and Lewontin is over a very fine point. They largely agree with each other. Furthermore, I, like Aprock, was a bit surprised to see this in the present article at all. The article is not about Lewontin. Last of all, a point not yet mentioned though glaringly obvious, is that there is a big problem with parity of sources. Dawkins' non-peer-reviewed popular science book is being used to challange Lewontin's peer-reviewed scientific paper. I have grave reservations about that. For me, that's a sufficient reason not to mention Dawkins' rebuttal at all, regardless of his reputation. That clearly violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Criticism of peer-reviewed sources must absolutely come from peer-reviewed sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments appear to disagree with wikipedia policies. WP:PRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors...Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources"

Dawkins is a reliable secondary source for the primary source of Lewontin. Wikipedia is suppose to focus on secondary sources over primary sources.

In regards to WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL, this seems to be an assertion that Dawkins and Edwards is the minority position which is not accurate. Support of Edwards' position is quite mainstream. From both peer reviewed sources and secondary sources. BlackHades (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the chapter from which you are quoting. Dawkins clearly states: "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." (pg. 406) aprock (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which view on race? In regards to Lewontin's argument that within race variation is higher than between race variation? Yes. That humans as a species are far more homogeneous than other species? Also yes. That race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance? Absolutely NOT. This specific point by Lewontin is heavily refuted in the scientific fields. Not just by Edwards and Dawkins. In fact there's an entire scientific field today based around how wrong Lewontin was on this point. Which is the scientific field of Race and medicine.

"Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported."--Foster, Morris W., and Richard R. Sharp. "Race, ethnicity, and genomics: social classifications as proxies of biological heterogeneity." Genome Research 12.6 (2002): 844-850. BlackHades (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Which view on race?" Again, you are free to read the book referenced. At this juncture, you appear to be saying that Dawkins is a fine source for content you agree with, but when it comes to content that you don't agree with you bring a handful of older sources. I assume you can see the inconsistency here. aprock (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still with the straw man arguments? First, I didn't even mention Lewontin in regards to scientific mainstream in the post you responded to. Who knows why you brought him up other than you. You appear to have extreme difficulty responding to my actual points as you continuously time and time again ignore my points and respond back to imaginary things I never ever stated instead. (e.g. I explain Edwards is mainstream and instead of responding back about Edwards, you talk about Lewontin instead).

Secondly, talk about cherry picking Dawkins. I don't think you can accuse anyone of cherry picking after this. Dawkins is not stating that Lewontin's ENTIRE view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. Unless you want to make the ridiculous claim that Dawkins is admitting to being outside the scientific circles and accusing Edwards of being outside of it as well. Are you really making this claim? Most and nearly all of Lewontin's views on race is mainstream but Dawkins picks out the one point by Lewontin that isn't and explains why. By the way, claiming that I don't agree with Dawkins is another straw man argument. You are free to read the book referenced. BlackHades (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawkins is quite clear in his book about what he refers to as Lewontin's view. Do the sources you list even mention Lewontin? You appear to be confusing yourself here. aprock (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dawkins is quite clear and somehow you still don't seem to get it. BlackHades (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

Well, this is interesting. So far we have the following opinions:

Keep Dawkins in:
BlackHades
The Devil's Advocate
Nbound (not previously involved)

Kick Dawkins out:
Aprock
ArtifexMayhem
Dominus Vobisdu (not previously involved)

Neutral: Guy Macon

I am going to ask again that everyone try an experiment. For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong?

Please try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener, plus, we all get to mock anyome who refuses to get with the program. (Note to the humor impared: that was a joke). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

As it concerns the claims of cherry-picking I think the best example of cherry-picking is the opening statement by ArtifexMayhem. He is cherry-picking Dawkins to make Dawkins say what he wishes Dawkins had said. It is true that Dawkins says "no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are", but here is the full context:

Above the species level, a genus is just a group of species that are pretty similar to each other. No objective criterion exists to decide how similar they have to be, and the same is true of all the higher levels: family, order, class, phylum and the various ‘sub-’ or ‘super-’ names that intervene between them. Below the species level, ‘race’ and ‘subspecies’ are used more or less interchangeably and, again, no objective criterion exists that would enable us to decide whether two people should be considered part of the same race or not, nor to decide how many races there are.

In other words, he says no objective criteria exist for any of the classifications other than species classifications, but he also says this about species:

Biologists normally classify animals that mate under artificial conditions but refuse to mate in the wild as separate species, as has happened with the grasshoppers. But unlike, say, lions and tigers, which can hybridise in zoos to make (sterile) ‘ligers’ and ‘tigrons’, those grasshoppers look identical. Apparently the only difference is in their songs. And it is this, and only this, that stops them crossbreeding and therefore leads us to recognise them as separate species.

He subsequently relates this to humans:

If Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus are separated as two distinct species of grasshoppers because they prefer not to interbreed although they physically could, might humans, at least in ancient times of tribal exclusivity, once have been separable in the same kind of way? Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus, remember, in all detectable respects except their song, are identical, and when they are (easily) persuaded to hybridise their offspring are fully fertile.

So he also casts serious doubt on the objective criteria used to distinguish species, suggesting that human populations could have been categorized as separate species at one point. To note his statement about there not being objective criteria to distinguish races as though it shows him saying race is not a genetically significant attribute is blatant cherry-picking. It does not end there as the quote about "superficial differences" is also cherry-picked from this quote:

We are indeed a very uniform species if you count the totality of genes, or if you take a truly random sample of genes; but perhaps there are special reasons for a disproportionate amount of variation in those very genes that make it easy for us to notice variation, and to distinguish our own kind from others. This would include the genes responsible for externally visible ‘labels’ like skin colour. Yet again, I want to suggest that this heightened discriminability has evolved by sexual selection, specifically in humans because we are such a culture-bound species. Because our mating decisions are so heavily influenced by cultural tradition, and because our cultures, and sometimes our religions, encourage us to discriminate against outsiders, especially in choosing mates, those superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us.

He follows it up with this:

I want to consider two versions of this theory: a strong and a weak one. The truth could be any combination of the two. The strong theory suggests that skin colour, and other conspicuous genetic badges, evolved actively as discriminators in choosing mates. The weak theory, which can be thought of as leading into the strong version, places cultural differences, such as language and religion, in the same role as geographical separation in the incipient stages of speciation. Once cultural differences have achieved this initial separation, with the consequence that there is no gene flow to hold them together, the groups would subsequently evolve apart genetically, as if geographically separated.

This hardly suggests a view of race as not being a genetically significant attribute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a spirited defense of the "yes, there is cherry picking" position, and is well worth discussing, but I cannot help wondering how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree. (I am not picking on you in particular; I am asking everyone this). Clearly you are talking past each other. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? Please consider answering the questions I asked above. I do have a fair amount of experience helping people to resolve disputes, and I am asking you and everyone else here to try something new. Repeating the same arguments that failed to resolve the dispute on the article talk page is unlikely to have a different outcome here. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused. I was rebutting the claim of cherry-picking made by Artifex, Aprock, and Dominus. Artifex was, oddly enough, cherry-picking Dawkins to back up his claim that others were cherry-picking Dawkins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confused at all. I specifically asked you to attempt to refute the the claim of no cherry-picking made by BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate, and Nbound, but instead you attempted to refute the claim of cherry-picking made by Aprock, ArtifexMayhem, and Dominus Vobisdu.

The whole point of the dispute resolution noticeboard is to try something different from what failed to work on the article talk page. What you have here is a neutral party who is trying to guide the discussion to a solution. Those editors who ignore the dispute resolution volunteers requests give the appearance of being one of the reasons why this was not settled on the article talk page. Those editors who make a good-faith effort to read, understand, and follow the requests made by the dispute resolution volunteer -- or at the very least explain why they think the request is stupid -- give the appearance of working towards a resolution of the dispute.

So, once again I ask (and will keep asking) how you explain the fact that three out of six editors who have commented strongly disagree with you. How can you reconcile your belief that you have the answer with the fact that other editors who appear to be just as intelligent as you think that they have the answer? It's a fair question; why the refusal to answer it?

And once again I am asking you (and everyone else) to write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are" and to post it here without any criticism or rebuttal of any kind. Clearly you are talking past each other. Please don't repeat that behavior with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, are you asking us to "write for the opposition"? Sorry, but it's late here and my brain is having trouble parsing the syntax. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is what he's asking. Which I already did above. Guy says this is to understand the other side better which will help this come to a resolution. I thought it was a good idea but unfortunately no one else seemed willing to partake in it yet. BlackHades (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am asking you to write for the opposition. The problem we have here is that both sides appear to be 100% certain that they have compelling arguments and that the other side has nothing. I say that both sides have reasonable arguments that are simply not getting through. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

24-hour closing proposal: I'm yet another DRN volunteer. Has everyone decided to back out of this dispute? I see there's been no new discussion at the article or article talk page since May 24 and none here in the last three days. Are you done? Unless someone says they're still interested — preferably by posting a response complying with Guy Macon's last request, above, though just a note of continued interest will do — I or some other volunteer will close this as stale after 17:00 June 7, 2013 (UTC), slightly more than 24 hours from now. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artifex and I responded just several hours ago above. I'll move the comments down here. BlackHades (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Dawkins' chapter is race and genentics. Any rewrite which places Dawkin's critique of Lewontin without giving a fuller treatment of the chapter in general is still going to have substantial problems with WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

"Here is what I think the best reasons for believing that there has not been any cherry-picking":

1. Given the fact that the section is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism.", including Dawkins should not be a problem.
2. Dawkins makes it clear that he disagrees with Lewontin's claim that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'...

a. "But that doesn't mean that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'.

b. "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be ... they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

c. "In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."

Therefore, including Dawkins' view, that race is a genetically significant attribute, is not cherry-picking.

As requested. I think. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artifex, are you against including Dawkins under any circumstances or would you be open to a rewrite? If you're open to a rewrite, we could include more points by Lewontin that Dawkins does agree with. It is true that Dawkins does agree with Lewontin for the most part despite his key objection on one particular aspect. Perhaps we could make a rewrite to better highlight the points that Dawkins does agree with Lewontin on, along with the objection that he has. If this sounds acceptable, I will start working on creating a rewrite. Let me know. Thanks. BlackHades (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The DR:N labels this as needed a volunteer but you all have Guy Macon on the job and it seems you've found traction. Should the re-write plan pan out and you need input for consensus on that, I've read through the dispute and could be one more voice. Otherwise, going to update you're in good hands. Good luck. EBY (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your input will be welcome. BlackHades (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a procedural note: (I'm good at these, at least <ahem> when I get them right.) Disputes have a two-week life here at DRN. After that, the archive bot will automatically close and archive them if there's no new addition to the thread within any 24 hour period on the theory that disputes which are so complicated that they cannot be resolved within 2 weeks really either need to keep moving or move along to RFC or MedCom. Since there does seem to be some progress being made here, I've gone ahead and extended the life on this case to three weeks (until 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC) to be precise), but everyone needs to keep that in mind. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TM. I think I'll just go ahead and start working on the rewrite while I wait for Artifex's response. I hope Artifex will be okay with that. Pg 406-407 is where Dawkins highlights which point by Lewontin he agrees with and which point he doesn't so I'll try to make a rewrite that centers around this. BlackHades (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply responding to Guy's request. Regardless...No, I'm not against including Dawkins under any circumstances but I don't see any right now. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a little more? When you say "don't see any right now", are you saying you haven't seen a version yet that you deem acceptable or are you saying you're unable to even fathom any version you would possibly deem acceptable? My request above for a rewrite, would this be acceptable or not? BlackHades (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that cryptic (real life as been nuts lately)...Yes, propose a rewrite. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rush you folks, but there has been very little activity and a long time between comments and replies. I am trying to judge whether I should mark this as failed and move on to discussing what the next step in dispute resolution is if DRN can not resolve the diispute. Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been putting a lot of effort into trying to make this work but I'm starting to agree with you. I did start working on another rewrite but Artifex's response makes it sound like he's unwilling to accept anything I write. And Aprock obviously clearly won't as he's been unwilling to even create his own version repeatedly. It just appears to be an effort to block/impede relevant WP:V material that they WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. BlackHades (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Let me outdent this and discuss the next step.

So, the first two methods in the chain of steps listed at WP:DR seem to have failed to resolve the conflict. As usual, I am not offering an opinion as to why this is who is right. The next step would seem to be an WP:RFC. Write up a request for comments, post it and advertise it. If you want to start with a draft version in userspace, I will be happy to go over it and comment on the clarity and structure and where I think you should advertise the RfC. Please note that, unlike DRN or talk page discussions, an RfC can resolve the conflict even if some of those involved do not participate. Once you have the RfC closer saying that the results are to keep the material in or keep it out, whichever of you loses has to accept the result or (after a couple of warnings) be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and suggestions Guy. Since Artifex has now stated he's open to a rewrite, I'll put the RfC on hold for now and go back on working on the rewrite again and hopefully come up with something that will be satisfactory for everyone. I initially misinterpreted Artifex's comment and I'd like to apologize for that. I should have a rewrite ready by tomorrow. BlackHades (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rewrite. Page 406-407 is where Dawkins specifically states the lines by Lewontin he agrees with and the lines he disagrees with. So I made this rewrite to center around this. Thoughts? Suggestions? Comments?

BlackHades (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that I can do to be of assistance? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– 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

• Capoeira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Danilolabbate (talk · contribs)
• 46.7.236.155 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unregistered member making wrong statement in the begining of the article, and backing it with an absolutely out-of-context reference.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried using the article's talk, got no answer. Can't contact other user directly, as he's an unregistered user.

How do you think we can help?

The most important thing, as the article talks about a somewhat polemic part of Brazilian culture, I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only.

Also, mediation in the "talk" section might help, although the other user failed to answer my last message.

Opening comments by 46.7.236.155

Disagreeing with someone is not making a "wrong statement." I have backed up my edits with reference to two reliable sources. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capoeira discussion

Have you invited this member to the discussion via their talk page? The IP address should be added instead of "unregistered member" above aswell -- Nbound (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the user list and invited the IP to the discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that IP editors have as much right to edit non-protected articles as the filing editor does. The statement "I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only" concerns me a little. If both parties do not continue discussion here within the next day or so, I will close this case. -- Nbound (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start the discussion, I noticed this on the talk page: "OK... I'm assuming good faith, I'm assuming you really got confused, so I'll explain it.", this can come across as not assuming good faith (Imagine if someone said this to you midway though something you cared about). Im sure you didnt mean to come across that way, so just keep in mind to try and not WP:BITE the newcomers. -- Nbound (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we cant just call this a sport? Most other martial arts consider themselves sports, and can be used in real situations or for fun/training, just like Capoeira. We can call it either a sport alone, or a sport and a martial art. Most sports are formalised games, so this could be a quite apt description -- Nbound (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports are competitive and have sets of rules. Capoeira doesn't have a ruleset or a scoring system. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's accurate. I would consider jogging to be a sport, but it is not competitive and does not have fixed rules and scoring. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not all sports are competitive or have rules. Infact, personally, the usage of game would be more indicative of rules. Soccer is a game, jogging is not a game. They are both sports. -- Nbound (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it can be quite contentious. A similar discussion has been going on at Talk:Kendo#Bizarre denial that Kendo is a sport. If your practicing something as a spiritual path it can be insulting for someone to come along and call it a sport. (There might actually be a subtile western centric bias with a word like sport.) I don't actually think there is a need to try and place Capoeira in a particular pigeon hole, just use descriptions in RS. It could be described as an art form or a game or both. A footnote in The Little Capoeira Book (page 8) say "Capoeira can be used to describe the art form or in this case a practitioner of the art form..."--Salix (talk): 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The filing editor had an issue with both (a game and a martial art), which is why I am trying to find a neutral term. Many other martial arts, which are often described as sports, also have a spiritual/philosophical element. I do agree that sport could be a biased term though, but it is also a nuanced term depending on context. Perhaps an short explanation would be in order within the lead (ie. which aspects of the broader sport term we are emphasising by the term). Similarly most people would classify Parkour as a sport, but those who practice it generally do not like the term (it isnt on the Wikipedia page), even though there are professional competitions, in what is a relatively uncompetitive sport which emphasises a philosophy of freedom from all rules. If all parties cant agree on a neutral term to explain Capoeira, I guess we would have to stick with martial art (noone disagrees with that I hope). -- Nbound (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BBC educational page uses physical discipline. "Capoeira is a physical discipline involving movement and featuring elements from dance and the martial arts."[3] That seems less problematic. A complete lead description should also mention the music and the fact its practiced as both a martial art and a game. (Reflecting the sections in the article). --Salix (talk): 07:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any further comments to be made or shall I consider the discussion stalled? -- Nbound (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the discussion is stalled. smileguy91^talk 16:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– 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

• Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deadbeef (talk · contribs)
• Greengrounds (talk · contribs)
• Ozhistory (talk · contribs)
• Hcc01 (talk · contribs)
• IronMaidenRocks (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over the validity of the sources used in the article, as well as the content therein. This dispute is between Greengrounds and (primarily) Ozhistory, who is joined by IronMaidenRocks, with Hcc01 getting tangled in the dispute as well. Greengrounds favors precedence to be given to Albert Speer, Richard Carrier and John Toland as sources, each supporting that Adolf Hitler held Catholic beliefs in his adult life. Ozhistory prefers to lend precedence to Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, who suggest that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This has been continuing for over a month now, and as is noted in the most recent talk page section, the article has suffered as a result.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At the start of this dispute, I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft of the introductory paragraph (where the dispute was contained at the time, and primarily is now) that would attempt to placate both sides. However, it was never fully agreed upon, and eventually slipped back into a battleground.

How do you think we can help?

Independent third parties are needed to evaluate the sources and decide what gets into the article as fact and what gets in as an aside. This may simply become a matter of consensus, where more editors become involved and weigh into the issue until it becomes clear how each side of the coin will be presented. If that fails, or becomes eroded again, this will likely head to RfM.

Opening comments by Greengrounds

I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, HERE and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war. Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Ozhistory

Opening comments by Hcc01

The article is certainly currently a shambles after the recent disputes, as noted on its talk page, and Greengrounds has been referred as a cause for concern as a result of some of his behaviour. The current situation is that I have offered to rewrite it from scratch and a neutral observer - Taigei - has created a sandbox page for me and/or other editors to do so without further damaging the article. I haven't yet responded to this opportunity because I am very busy at the moment, but I am willing to do so. As noted above, I have suggested that everyone take a break from editing it for a while afterwards to allow feelings on all sides to cool down, but as Ozhistory has pointed out, on Wikipedia such a request is unenforceable. If it could be temporarily protected after a rewrite, that might help.

In one sense I think this is less about the content of the article than about the context of Ratzinger's/Dawkins' spat on the subject a couple of years ago. Since then the historical debate about whether or not, and to what extent, the Third Reich was 'Christian' in any meaningful sense of the word has been more or less a public slanging match, and this article appears to be collateral damage. Of course, I may be underplaying the public impact of Steigmann-Gall's research on the subject, which certainly provoked quite a heated debate among historians. However, current historical research seldom filters through to public debate, and as the more sensible reviewers noted, all RSG really did was move the start of the secular phase of Nazism by five years, whereas the New Atheist movement now needs for ideological reasons to expunge it altogether. It's unfortunate, but there we are. Hcc01 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by IronMaidenRocks

I feel that both users Greengrounds and Ozhistory are applying some level of bias to the article that does not belong. Both users are lobbying based on their personal beliefs, and it has tainted the talk page. For the most part, the article well reflects the contradictory nature of Hitler's personal beliefs. There's no reason to interject a one-sided viewpoint. Greengrounds has a history of belligerence in the talk page, along with plying his POV to the article. I've seen Ozhistory make at least one recommendation which appeared to be in line with his own POV.

I would recommend the article for peer review. I don't think there's any reason to favor either user here, as they both seem to have a personal interest in the article and how its presented. Users are drawing battle lines, which is worrying, and perhaps a good sign that frequent editors need to take a break or get off the project. But there is an influx of users trying to promote an agenda for either 'atheism on the march' or deflection of blame toward religion. Users such as Greengrounds and some of the sources they've added to the article imply there's an active conspiracy to disassociate Hitler's religious views with Christianity. On the other hand, I have noted a worrying amount of users going in the opposite direction to imply that Hitler was wholly motivated by religion; a view not supported by several of the sources mentioned in the article.

User:HectorMoffet suggested splitting the article between Hitler's 'views' and 'policies', which may helpful. It could be that some users are trying to wind Hitler's political actions into his personal beliefs, or vice verse. For example, I believe that the extensive discussion of Nazi reaction to the political activities of churches, like the Confessing church, has little to do with the personal beliefs of Adolf Hitler, and could be construed as apologist deflection. Of course, Hitler's struggles with such groups does have to do with his lifetime of activity with religions, etc.

Users should be more inclined to work together without agenda, though for some agenda is the whole reason why they're editing the article. I do have a concern that the article may become a matter of 'read between the lines to see a debate which is not actually mentioned herein'. A debate which has no place in the article, because both sides are politically constructed and opposed to historical truth.

--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler discussion

– 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

• International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JamesLappeman (talk · contribs)
• Nietzsche123 (talk · contribs)
• JamieBrown2011 (talk · contribs)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a source ^[1] that has been used to reference the ICOC. It is the foundational source for the disputed section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ#Members.27_personality_changes). Lengthy debate on the reliability has dead ended without resolution. Both those in favor of the source and those against it have strong opinions on its reliability hence the deadlock.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After a lengthy debate on the talk page [[4]] It was posted on the Reliable Source Noticeboard but there was no success. "TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom", who is a more experienced editor than myself, suggested that we put it forward for dispute resolution given the circles that we have talked.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the source and our cases in order to help us resolve the issue as to whether this is a reliable source.

Opening comments by Nietzsche123

Flavil Yeakley's CV may be found here: CV. He has a BA in psychology, an MA in speech communication, and a PhD in speech communication. Yeakley was an associate professor at the University of Tulsa from 1974-1984 and a professor and researcher at Harding University since 1984. Amongst other things, he has published three books and nine journal articles, all of which concern psychological matters and are published in scholarly journals. In 1988 the ICOC asked Yeakley to administer the MBTI to its members in order to clear its name from criticism it was then receiving. The hope was that the testing would reveal that its church members showed no personality change. But when Yeakley's research showed the opposite--that over 900 of its church members changed their MBTI type--the ICOC distanced itself from Yeakley, leaving Yeakley to publish his research using the COC's own publishing house. While there is some controversy over the use of the MBTI as a reliable indicator of personality change, it's still the most widely used tool available^[1]. The MBTI is used in church and other circles^[2]. Moreover, recent scholarly research vindicates the use of the MBTI as a reliable measurement of personality change^[3]. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by JamieBrown2011

Yeakley:

• Is unqualified for publishing research on the complex issue of personality change. He has a bachelors degree in Psychology. His advanced degrees have nothing to do with this subject matter, but are in the area of communications.
• Consequently the methodology used in his book is faulty. Meyers-Briggs is a popular personality test, but is HIGHLY unreliable in the test-retest area, with between 39% and 71% of people having different personality profiles upon retesting. No professional psychologist would use MBTI tests to research personality change.
• In Fortune Magazine, May 15th, 2013, an article on the test entitled "Have we all been duped by the Meyers-Briggs Test", had this to say:

  "The interesting -- and somewhat alarming -- fact about the MBTI is that, despite its popularity, it has been subject to sustained criticism by professional psychologists for over three decades. One problem is that it displays what statisticians call low "test-retest reliability." So if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there's around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category compared to the first time you took the test."

  The consequence is that the scores of two people labelled "introvert" and "extrovert" may be almost exactly the same, but they could be placed into different categories since they fall on either side of an imaginary dividing line. ^[4]

Yeakley's Publisher, "Gospel Advocate":

• Is unqualified to publish books of this nature. They are essentially a husband and wife publisher for the Churches of Christ, producing predominantly Sunday School curriculums, along with a religious periodical and some christian books. They have no visible editorial board (according to their website) and no experience in publishing Psychological research.

Despite these glaring problems, Yeakley research features prominently on the ICOC page.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away.

I do not particularly care one way or the other how this specific content inclusion discussion washes out and I am willing to follow the consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by JamesLappeman

25 years ago, before the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) was formally recognized as a completely separate new church (from the Churches of Christ), a minister from the mainline Churches of Christ (Flavil Yeakley) conducted a Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality profile on members of the Boston Church of Christ. His tests weren't externally verified, nor have they been redone or used in the study of psychology. His findings showed that the ICOC was changing the personalities of its members. This research alone is unreliable to substantiate such a major claim (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Reliability and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_changes#Inconsistency_as_a_trait). The results were only published by a mainline Church of Christ family business publishing house (Gospel Advocate see http://stores.homestead.com/GospelAdvocateCompany/Page.bok?template=about ) with no apparent editorial board and no authority or experience in the field of psychology or personality change. This research is being used in two sections of the ICOC page as encyclopedic quality information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Discipling and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICOC#Members.27_personality_changes). Is this regarded as a reliable source on the ICOC considering Wiki Rules (WP:RS, WP:QS, WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:SPS etc..) and the weight of the claims being made?

International Churches of Christ discussion

<This was resolved by consensus on the article talk page> EBY (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 64.228.66.119 on 22:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC).[reply] Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Justin Trudeau (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved KBillie (talk · contribs) Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk · contribs) Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs) 117Avenue (talk · contribs) Krazytea (talk · contribs) CJCurrie (talk · contribs) User-multi error: no username detected (help). Dispute overview The dispute is to whether the predecessor of Justin Trudeau as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was: 1. Michael Ignatieff, or 2. Robert Rae Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have edited the page to correctly reflect the record of the party's succession. Since it was edited back, I have engaged on the discussion page with citations from the Liberal Party of Canada's constitution. In the face of repeated counter-edits without the citation of any authority, I seek a third party opinion. How do you think we can help? It would be meaningful for an impartial third party to do a few things: 1. Remind users not to continually edit a page without meaningfully giving authoritative reasons on the talk page where there is a dispute. 2. Invite users to say that, if they believe Robert Rae was ever the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to say when he was elected, at what convention, by how many votes, and why that election is not reflected on his own Wiki page. 3. Emphasize the importance of sourcing. Opening comments by KBillie Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Newfoundlander&Labradorian Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Dbrodbeck Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This was already figured out like a month ago, I have no idea why this is here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by 117Avenue Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This is a trivial argument that ended over a month ago. Dispute resolution wasn't needed. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by Krazytea Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. I thought this was resolved a month ago already but apparently it has been brought up again? The resolution then appeared to be that since the Liberal Party of Canada lists all leaders including interim ones as leaders that they become the official leader and thus its usage by convention in the infobox. All pages use this model as do other parties such as Stéphane Dion of the Liberals and Thomas Mulcair of the New Democratic Party. Other propositions were offered up to include both but we seemed to be for the most part satisfied with current situation. Krazytea(talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Opening comments by CJCurrie Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Talk:Justin Trudeau discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– 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

• User talk:Woogie10w (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ovsek (talk · contribs)
• Woogie10w (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties in this article, in British Commonwealth section, British India is referred as India and undivided India, In WW2 India was a colony of Britain. Known as British India and it was also undivided, India during Mughal period was also undivided but it was not involved in WW2., so I believe British India, this term is better as it was simultaneously Undivided and was involved in WW2. Off course it is my own view, but I believe It is more specific.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No.

How do you think we can help?

Sending an expert. As well as following Logic.

Opening comments by Woogie10w

I reverted this entry by Ovsek [5] based on the source listed below

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission uses the description "Undivided India" on page 43 [6] The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is an official source that is reliable beyond question. They put Indian war WW2 dead at 87,000. Undivided India is the description used by theCommonwealth War Graves Commission. We use reliable sources on Wikipedia that can be verified, not the unsourced POV of Ovsek

The BBC refers to India and the Indian Army [7].

The bharat-rakshak.com webpage uses the description Indian Army, they wrote More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, [8]-- --Woogie10w (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made these two entries, I hope they will end this dispute. [9] ----- [10]--Woogie10w (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Woogie10w discussion

Pre-opening comments:

It is obvious fact that India was under British rule during WW2, known as British India, it is better to say this term.

http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties/world-war-2-casualties-index.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/colonies_colonials_01.shtml http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/Wars/British/WW2/?g2_page=2http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/india.htm http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm

Undivided India means India prior to 1947 Partition Of India under any kind of Government. India during Mughal period was also Undivided. It was not involved in WW2. British India was undivided and was also involved in WW2. The country's name was India, governed by Britain, not it's name was undivided India.Ovsek (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC also provides Indian causality number.BBC History is no doubt reliable source.Ovsek (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is proved that Bharat Rakshak is reliable.Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_31#Bharat-Rakshak_-_RS_or_non-RS

The parties have not yet discussed the issue in the article talk page. FalkirksTalk 02:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by 24.207.127.20 on 04:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply] Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute David John Pearson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 24.207.127.20 (talk · contribs) Yworo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits: •Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson •Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total) •When I asked to go to arbitration over his approach, no action resulted from him. In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects. Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards, Andrew Have you tried to resolve this previously? Several comments in the edit talk section How do you think we can help? Could I ask that you review the edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version that I published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and prevent Yworo from continuing his arbitrary war of attrition on this article? Opening comments by Yworo Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. As you can see Talk:David John Pearson. there has been no discussion on the talk page. Nor has there been any discussion on my talk page or the IPs talk page. IP is unaware of our preferred article structure, and keeps moving early life and education into the lead section, and has also removed all sections entirely, leaving a stub article. The IP also can't seem to tell the difference between sequential level 2 headings and nested headings, claiming that the CADES section is inside the early life section: it's not, it follows it, rather than being contained in it. Most likely the IP is the subject, and he is trying to conform the article to something his marketing team wrote. He seems to have no idea of the difference between an edit summary and a talk page, and has not engaged in any discussion whatsoever. Frankly, he should be blocked, as he keeps regressing the article to inferior forms. Sheesh. Learn how Wikipedia works before tromping all over the flowers, buddy. Yworo (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] David John Pearson discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– 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

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• pluto2012 (talk · contribs)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if Wikipedia rules are offended. The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:

• Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

• do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

I have complained at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard but no one is taking care. The offender does not find errors in the removed section, but claims for a lack of other views. In my opinion there is no other view, but even if it would exist, it should be added to the section rather than deleting it.

What can be done in order to enforce the Wikipedia rule?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked him to add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

How do you think we can help?

to convince user: pluto2012 to obey Wikipedia rules, and add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

Opening comments by pluto2012

• Regarding the dispute, I find that the best answer is the one of user Nableezy : "As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"
• Regarding the content, everything has been said on the talk page of the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Nishidani

Several editors objected to kantor's insistance on reinserting a dubious blob of text, tagged as unsatisfactory 2 years ago, into this article. He has singled out here one editor. The judgement of that editor, a wiki expert on the period, was supported by several other editors (Federico,Itsmejudith, Zero, myself ). Kantor is supporting WP:OR, violating WP:NPOV, ignoring WP:Undue, and not listening.

• Kantor's text has taken one source, notable but notably partisan, and used it to promote a minority thesis, involving highly contentious conclusions, in wikipedia's neutral voice. At glance at what is going is will reveal the problems. I.e.

• • (a)Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs. (source:Karsh)

• • (b)it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists (source:Karsh)

• • (c)the British in the months before May 1948 did their best to encumber and block partition (source:Karsh)

• • (d)It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine

• • (e)British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size". (source:Karsh)

• • (f)British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised (source:Karsh)

• • (g)In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) (source:Karsh)

• • (h)The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine (source:Karsh)

• • (i)Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis (source:Karsh)

• • (j)The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs (source:Karsh)Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab–Israeli War discussion

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. I have pored over the old revisions, and, though the section was well sourced, it did seem biased. But, as already stated in WP:NPOV, the section should be rewritten to reduce bias. I would like an explanation of why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet. Regards, smileguy91^talk 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• David John Pearson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yworo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please review the edit changes and dialogue with Yworo on this article since 29 May 2013. His initial edits:•Fragmented the article, putting the CADES achievement into Early Life when it was perhaps the main career achievement of Pearson and should remain in the Summary.•Inserted the need for citations, verifications and references above each paragraph when they were clearly present (12 in total). In frustration with what I considered to be an arbitrary and slipshod approach to editing by Yworo I reduced the article substantially on 6 June to avoid any claims of bias he might have. On 7 June I added additional references to cover his initial spurious claims re c,v&r's. Within a very short time, he had reverted to his initial major edit and has blocked further reversions by me. I consider this current article poor in a number of respects.Yworo accuses me of engaging in an editing war, having a conflict of interest and of not providing verifiable information, all of which I strongly dispute. Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Listed my response to Yworo editing comments in Talk section. No response from Yworo to this.

How do you think we can help?

Could I ask that you review my Talk input and the last few days' edit dialogue for this article, reinstate the version published at 17:18 on 7 June 2013, and discourage Yworo from continuing his war of attrition on this article? Thanks and kind regards.

Opening comments by Yworo

David John Pearson discussion