Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 84

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 → Archive 90

Kristi Lee

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

User:John from Idegon disagrees with my source for the real name of radio personality Kristi Lee [2]. This is a legitimate source for her name. The Indianapolis Star printed this on the front page of their "CITY STATE" section (B-1) on May 6, 2004. As unfortunate as it may be that the article is about her husband mostly, who is a convicted sex offender, it's the only article to be found that gives her actual name. The article states in part "Theresa Ritz uses the name Kristi Lee when she delivers the daily news reports for the syndicated "Bob and Tom Show" on WFBQ-FM (94.7)." Furthermore, User:John from Idegon previously had a problem when I cited it without a source and told me to get a source. I obtained a source and he still reverts it to an edit of her name that has no source at all. I would welcome User:John from Idegon to find another article that cites her actual name that doesn't include anything about her husband. Further evidence that this is her name can be found in these public records [3] that are readily available.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

It has been discussed several times and no agreement has been reached.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping an independent person can weigh in on this.

Summary of dispute by John from Idegon

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Firstly, I find his claim about the reason to make these edits disingenuous. Back in November, he inserted information regarding the ex-husband sex offender, which other than a blog he has shown no proof that anyone can see is even her husband. There is already a discussion on the talkpage regarding that info; it is an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E and really does not have any bearing on the subject of the article. see this dif: [4]. Secondly the only ref I can see has no connection showing it actually is Kristi Lee. The others offered was something behind a paywall on the Bob and Tom website, and the article he mentions that by the way is also paywalled. The only ref that can be seen is of questionable reliability and it doesn't actually connect the Kirsti Lee persona to any real name. In short, when we have a reference that is reliable to show that is her name, I would really have no problem with a change. But if the purpose of his edit is to "correct" her real name, i would ask why the reference he added seems to support the "Rose" name? John from Idegon (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Kristi Lee discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Jainism and Hinduism

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

There was a sourced claim which was removed from the article "Jainism and Hinduism". Bladesmulti feels that the claim is wrong and have also earlier requested for a religious scripture to back up the claim. I have also tried adding more sources and content which Bladesmulti rejects as 'nonsense'. Bladesmulti claim that scholars such as Helmuth Von Glasenapp and M. Whitney Kelting are unreliable because what they wrote does not corresponds to the scriptures. Bladesmulti has also not yet provided any reliable source which contradicts the information mentioned in the article.

In my view, the opinion of wikipedia editors should not matter in deciding whether a claim is right or wrong, and if the reliable sources makes a claim which is worth mentioning in the article, it should be. The reason that a claim is wrong is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Whatever was mentioned in the article was supported by references and, I tried attributing the scholars in order to avoid any POV. If there are scholars who differ, we can attribute them too.

The diff for the dispute is : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jainism_and_Hinduism&diff=586636005&oldid=586634730

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussing the matter with Bladesmutli. I have also tried rewording the lines to avoid any potential POV issue. However, it did not help.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can help in building a consensus on what should be done. Specifically, should the information be mentioned in the article or not? If it should be mentioned, then what would be the appropriate way of mentioning it. Maybe, also, bring out the relevant policy or guidelines which comes in play here.

Summary of dispute by Bladesmulti

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rahul Jain is asserting as similar fact as "Difference between X and Y is that X don't give importance to murder, loot, wars", even though Y has simply forbidden such practices. And then he would bring about 2 sources in which the person is either talking about 2 different practices, or contradicting the actual scriptures, as well as other authors. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Jainism and Hinduism discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello The Rahul Jain and Bladesmulti, this case is now officially open. My understanding is that the dispute is encapsulated in this edit. So let's go through the edit together, one step at a time, and see if we can find some common ground. I'd like to discuss each section of the edit separately so I've broken it up as follows:

  • Part I - Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that the difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows.{sfn|Glasenapp|1999|p=494}
  • Part II - Jains share a list of names of sati (virtuous women) with Hindus. The narratives of those Sati have certain variations. In Hindu context, a sati protects her husband and his family and has the intention to die before or with her husband. M. Whitney Kelting notes that the highest virtue for a Hindu women is to become satimata by dying on the funeral pyre of her husband. Jain sati, however, sees renunciation, rather than self-sacrifice as the highest virtue.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183}
  • Part III - Jains explicitly reject any notion of bodily self-sacrifice.{sfn|Keilting|2009|p=21}
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Part I

Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that the difference in the rituals of practitioners of the two religions would be that the Jains do not give any importance to bathing in holy water, cremating or burying ascetics, offering sacrifices to the dead and burning widows.{sfn|Glasenapp|1999|p=494}

Any comments about this text and source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Helmuth Von Glasenapp and his book "Jainism: An Indian religion of salvation" is perfectly reliable for the claim. The claim is even attributed to him to avoid any POV. If any contradictory claim is not made by another scholar, I would prefer removing the phrase "Helmuth Von Glasenapp writes that". Otherwise, it is fine. --Rahul (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Helmuth Von Glasenapp is already unaware about Hinduism, how come he don't know that Hinduism forbids all sacrifices? and forbids any burning of Widows as well. Thus he can be ignored in this regard. There are many much more reliable sources than him, who claims that USA created Al-qaeda or that Obama born in Kenya. But do we accept them if they contradict so much with the official information? Obviously not. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to provide any good reason to doubt the reliability of Glasenapp. The fact that you disagree with him has no relevance. --Rahul (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone, who has read about Hinduism even for 30 minutes can speak that it provides importance to animals & humans more than any other religion. While Glasenapp claims that Hindusism give importance to sacrifice, which is utter nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources which talk about animal sacrifices in Hinduism and Jainism:
  • Glasenapp, Helmuth von (1999). Jainism: An Indian Religion of Salvation. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 494. ISBN 978-81-208-1376-2. The most important differences with respect to rituals consist in the Jainas not giving any significance to bathing in holy rivers and cremating their ascetics (and not burying them as the hindus are used to do), in not offering sacrifices to the dead and in their not burning the widows.
  • Fuller, Christopher John (2004). The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India. Princeton University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0-691-12048-X. Nevertheless, animal sacrifices is practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism.
  • Dundas, Paul (2002). The Jains. Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-415-26606-2. That is not to say that the Jains subscribed to the cult of animal sacrifice itself, for they have always espoused as a central and necessary moral tenet the principle of ahimsa, 'non-violence' to all creatures and, indeed, they have contended that even the performance of a sacrifice with an inanimate surrogate is wrong, as in the famous story of Yasodhara who went to hell because of his innately violent mental disposition, despite having offered to a goddess merely a cockerel made of dough.
  • Waldau, Paul; Patton, Kimberley Christine (2006). A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science, and Ethics. Columbia University Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-231-13642-6. On the other hand, one should not get the impression the Hindu world represents a secure zone for non-human animals. Animal sacrifice, for example, plays a not insignificant role in Hindu religious history up to the present.
--Rahul (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see this source taken to RSN for more comments. The publication date with Motilal Barnarsidass is 1999 but Glasenapp died in the 1960s and we need to be sure that the text isn't contradicted by more recent historiography. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Except the good point raised by Itsmejudith, I would like to point that its not the matter how many people have talked about sacrifices related to Hinduism. But the matter of fact is that Hinduism forbids all sacrifices, so how you can rely on a source which is heavily contradictory to the Hinduism? And even more when the writings are solely representing hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My responses are: 1) I don't see any harm in attributing the author or book in the sentence. I'm not aware of any guideline that would prohibit that nor do I see any reason why it would be objectionable. 2) While there may be other sources on the same topic, its not appropriate to use other sources to invalidate this one. WP:NPOV requires that we present all points of view with appropriate weight. 3) However, if the source is questionable than I agree it should be discussed at WP:RSN. So I suggest we put aside this source for now and move on to part II of the edit. Once this moderated discussion is finished, then one of the involved editors can open a thread at RSN to discuss the Glasenapp source. Is that agreeable to everyone?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That is agreeable to me. --Rahul (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It's disputable since he's unaware about Hinduism, and being used for the Hinduism's literature. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, Bladesmulti, you can make that argument at the reliable sources noticeboard after this discussion concludes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Part II

Ok then let's move on to a discussion of part II of the edit that forms the core of this dispute.

  • Jains share a list of names of sati (virtuous women) with Hindus. The narratives of those Sati have certain variations. In Hindu context, a sati protects her husband and his family and has the intention to die before or with her husband. M. Whitney Kelting notes that the highest virtue for a Hindu women is to become satimata by dying on the funeral pyre of her husband. Jain sati, however, sees renunciation, rather than self-sacrifice as the highest virtue.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183}

Any comments on this content or source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

M. Whitney Kelting is a reliable academic. This texts discusses the difference between a Jain Sati and a Hindu Sati. --Rahul (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Check these sources:-
  • Trinath, Mishra (2010). The Hindu book of the dead. Penguin Books. p. 71. ISBN 9788189766429.
  • Trinath, Mishra (2003). Yantra, mantratantra. Bookwise. p. 143.
  • "Awakening", author = Subrata Das Gupta, chapter "Humanist by Creed Humanist in Deed", page = 141, url = http://books.google.com/books?id=QqtVC-IUu2QC&pg=PT141 (copied and pasted it from other page)
Sati is forbidden for Hindus for Kaliyuga(anything after 3102 BCE). Bladesmulti (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@Rahul:, can you provide a link and/or quote from Kelting that will help us to verify that the content above is a fair summary of that source? It would also be valuable to see the context of that information and to ascertain if Kelting is speaking of ancient culture or modern culture. Once we verify that source and its contents then we can discuss the addition of other sources and content. Thanks to all for your patience and participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a preview of it in the google books.[5] --Rahul (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rahul for the link. First I would note that Kelting is an academic who holds the title of associate professor [6] Also, I think the text could be improved to more accurately reflect what Kelting says. Let's look at it piece by piece.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Breakdown of paragraph

1) Jains share a list of names of sati (virtuous women) with Hindus. The narratives of those Sati have certain variations.

    • Kelting says: "Jain sati lists share several names and narratives found... in Hindu narratives of virtuous women." Maybe it's better to say something like: Some of the "names and narratives" on the Jain's list of satis are also found in the Hindu tradition." Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


2) In Hindu context, a sati protects her husband and his family and has the intention to die before or with her husband.

  • Kelting says: The sati of the Hindu context is one who fulfills utterly her role as a dedicated wife (pativrata) and whose dedication to her husband extends to her own acts of self-sacrifice, though not necessarily through death. A sati in the Hindu context always articulates her virtue through her dedication to her husband and her chastity. However, in the Hindu context the intention to die before or with one's husband is key to attain the virtue that makes one a sati. A sati who succeeds in her total self-sacrifice by dying with her husband can reach the highest level of attainable for a Hindu woman, that is to be a satimata..... [bold added] So while Kelting says that the "intention to die before or with one's husband is key" for a sati, he indicates that it is only necessary when one aspires to becoming a satimata. At least that is my reading of the passage. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


3) M. Whitney Kelting notes that the highest virtue for a Hindu women is to become satimata by dying on the funeral pyre of her husband.

  • Kelting says: A sati who succeeds in her total self-sacrifice by dying with her husband can reach the highest level of attainable for a Hindu woman, that is to be a satimata... I don't see any mention of a funeral pyre. He says 'dying with the husband' but he doesn't say via suicide or how or why the woman dies with her husband. It could be they die together via plane crash. I also think its important to note that Kelting emphasizes these are uncommon stories and narratives in the Hindu tradition. "The narratives of satis who are also found in Hindu narratives are the less commonly told stories (....) and they are also often (.......) articulated against the Hindu model of the sati who dies with her husband." We don't want to give a blanket impression that modern Hindu women are encouraged to commit suicide when their husband dies. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Kelting says that the narratives of Jain satis are the less commonly told and are articulated against the hindu model where the sati dies on the funeral pyre of the husband. Kelting uses the word "sahagamani" which she earlier described as "the act of widow dying on her husband's funeral pyre" (kelting 2006 page 183).
Another source ([7]) might give more clarification. It is by the same author. This says "satimata is virtually always a women who has died on her husband's funeral pyre. ... however, a women fully intended to die in this manner but was somehow prevented may also be called as a satimata" (kelting 2009, page 22). --Rahul (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Keltings says satimata is one who...died on her husband's funeral pyre..... she does not say this for sati. So that clarification needs to be made in the WP article text.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Part III

Jain sati, however, sees renunciation, rather than self-sacrifice as the highest virtue

  • Kelting says: The Jain use of the term always carries with it the language of virtue often articulated through the language of chastity or celibacy but without the idealization or potential of self-sacrifice.... Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this can be expanded from the second source. From ([8]),
  • "...Jains are not only not ignorant of Hindu satimatas who die on their husband's funeral pyre but are also acutely aware of the multivalent implications... Jains define satis in way that invoke shared ideals with Hindu satimata ... while explicitly rejecting any notions of bodily self-sacrifice." (kelting 2009, page 21)
  • "Although Hindus blurr the strict line between sati and satimatas ... , the distinction between sati and satimata is one which jains were quite familiar and a distinction they were careful to maintain. Jain satis, because they never immolate themselves, are never satimatas." (kelting 2009, page 22)
I think from the above sources, the distinction between a Jain sati and a Hindu sati should be made clear. --Rahul (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes its clear but the clarification between the requirements for sati and satimata needs to be made clear and the additional source you have cited needs to be added as well.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So, what needs to be done? Should we reword the entire thing or maybe add a line or two indicating the difference between "sati" and "satimata"? --Rahul (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes some tweaking would be good. How about this?

  • According to religious scholar M. Whitney Kelting, some of the "names and narratives" in the Jain's list of satis are also found in the Hindu tradition. In the Hindu context, a sati is said to protect her husband and his family and has the" intention to die before, or with," her husband. Kelting notes that those satis who die on the funeral pyre of their husband, or whom "intended to die" but were prevented from death, may attain a status called satimata. In the Jain tradition, Kelting says the term sati indicates a virtuous woman who sacrifices herself via renunciation, rather than {sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183} "bodily self-sacrifice".{sfn|Keilting|2009|p=21-22}

What do you think? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "sacrifices herself via renunciation" seems a bit problematic to me. Does kelting see renunciation as a sacrifice? What about this:
  • According to religious scholar M. Whitney Kelting, some of the "names and narratives" in the Hindu's list of satis are also found in the Jain tradition.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183} In the Hindu context, a sati is a virtuous wife who protects her husband and his family and has the "intention to die before, or with," her husband.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183} Kelting notes that those satis who die on the funeral pyre of their husband, or whom "intended to die" but were prevented from death, may attain a status called satimata.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183}{sfn|Keilting|2009|p=22} Kelting says that the Jain tradition, due to their traditions of non-violence and equanimity, explicitly reject any notions of self-immolation or death.{sfn|Keilting|2009|p=21}{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183} They, instead, see renunciation rather than self-sacrifice as the highest ideal for a Jain sati.{sfn|Keilting|2006|p=183}

I have also made small change in the first line, which seems more appropriate. --Rahul (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your change to the first sentence is good. However, I find this sentence [Their narratives of Jain sati are often articulated against the Hindu satis in this regard] is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I have made some changes, does it looks better? --Rahul (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, better. On a minor note I would remove the word 'explicitly' as I feel it gives undue emphasis. Other than that it looks OK to me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Now, it appears we have reviewed all of the content that we set out to review and discuss in this DRN. Bladesmulti has objected to this content but, per WP guidelines, I don't see any grounds for disallowing this content since it is reliably sourced. At the same time other scholarly views that give added insight or context (or even dispute this content) could and should be added to the article with appropriate weight. Are there any other final matters before we close this case? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this DRN can be closed now. --Rahul (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition of new sources and text

Simple story is..
  • When India was invaded by muslim invaders, by 12th century, the rapes, kidnapping, and other atrocities were carried out by the invaders just everyday, some sources cite that Muslims would bring more than 100 women to there Harem. So rather than getting insulted all over the society like this, the Indian women would rather chose to burn herself.
  • Child marriages also took place during almost same period, because people thought that the girl should be sent to a new home, before they are kidnapped. Although Child marraiges were arranged between the same age of kids.
  • Now since such subjects are highly touchy and highly avoided, its unecessary to bring such a weak argument for comparing hinduism and jainism. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have sources for these facts they can be added to the article as a way to provide context for Keltings assertions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously there are sources about these points. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

DNA history of Egypt

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.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Hello-Dougweller filed a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard on this exact issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&diff=589609315&oldid=589606565) after I filed this so I am not sure if I have to hold off on that in that case or because I believe I was first he has to hold back. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC) There is also an ArbComm case involving all the editors but that is in regards to conduct and not content.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Also: Population history of Egypt, Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Archeogenetics of the Near East, Egyptians, all regarding including the same sentence above. Including DNA studies once and for all, now culled from two peer reviewed sources with direct quotations-this debate will never end-it has been going on on these pages, over and over with these same exact editors involved in every discussion since this study came out and I doubt any consensus will ever be met without outside editor assistance. "===Recent Genetic Studies on Rameses Dynasty Lineages===

Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a, (ref name="bmj.com" Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012: "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies; using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a father-son relationship.") which "is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]" (ref name="International Society of Genetic Genealogy"International Society of Genetic Genealogy (3 February 2010). "Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2010". Retrieved 17 December 2010.): "E1b1a is a lineage that originated and expanded from West or Central Africa[.]")

What is the problem with the above? They are direct quotes and just as relevant as the AB

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Copious discussion on talk pages of these articles. Now direct quotes from the sources have been obtained. Banning and stalling inclusion and rigamoraling of this study from these articles has gone long enough. The sources clearly support the statements cited.

How do you think we can help?

Outside editor assistance is needed to resolve this content issue. This dispute will never end. It has been going on since this study came out. This study has been effectively been banned from inclusion on Wikipedia pages over arguments about what it "really says."I have finally got a direct quote from the source that is crystal clear. This is NOT about DNA tribes, this is in regards to peer reviewed studies succinctly and clearly setting forth results. I am open to editors discussing the wording for the relevant disclaimers but banning this study from these pages until we are all old needs to end today. I am quoting DIRECT QUOTES from peer-reviewed. It is unconscionable. Only outside editor assistance can help. This is not complicated, as the reference above shows.

Summary of dispute by Dougweller

This is WP:SYN. As I said at NORN, "these studies are reliable sources, it's the way that they are used that can be pov. I have no idea what you mean by an effective ban, but I presume it's another one of the conspiracy theories you've been pushing in an attempt to get editors (including me( blocked or banned from articles relating to Ancient Egypt. And it's not 2 peer-reviewed studies, it's one, you can't count the International Society of Genetic Genealogy web page as peer-reviewed. And "Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty of the New Kingdom state that they carried the Haplogroup E1b1a," on its own isn't appropriate. The conclusions of the BMJ article, " This study suggests that Ramesses III was murdered during the harem conspiracy by the cutting of his throat. Unknown man E is a possible candidate as Ramesses III’s son Pentawere." would be fine, but you are trying to use data in the article to prove a point." It's my understanding that using raw data from a scientific journal like this is disparaged - we should stick to the authors's interpretations and conclusions. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably worth adding that User:Andajara120000 has brought Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case asking for the editors listed here to be blocked or banned. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aun

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Yalens

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wdford

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

DNA history of Egypt discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Israeli-occupied territories

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

How the introduction should be worded, and weather the article should refer to the Gaza strip as occupied

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking and arguing extensively

How do you think we can help?

By providing a new force in the issue

Summary of dispute by Sepsis II

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This editor keeps trying to remove the international communities views on the occupation of Gaza from the article. I and another editor have tried to explain to him why he cannot use one poor source to delete the dozens of great sources which it contradicts and that making sentences ambiguous for the purpose of suppressing the international view in favour of a fringe view is not acceptable. I have wasted more than enough time trying to reason with this editor, it's time for this editor to drop it. Please close this thread as it will only waste your time. Sepsis II (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied territories discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Registered Retirement Savings Plan

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.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.


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

Re-write:

Benefits Section:

  • There is only one available analysis and math proof of RRSP net benefits (RetailInvestor). All other sources only repeat a set of conclusions - with personalized bits and pieces - without proof.
  • GZ and OX want to publish their own personalized set of conclusions which differ from govt/official lists.
  • They refuse to allow either the list from Government/official websites (in the ReWriteDec) or RetailInvestor's.
  • RetailInvestor's model and math is simple and verified by OX. It's conclusions are validated in a published periodical and government documents. The issue is provably correct/false.
  • GZ and OX's reasons seem to be personal antipathy to RI's author and 'tone'. Neither dispute the content - GZ refuses to read it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

  • Talk page now very long.
  • Suggested allowing both lists of benefits for neutral POV - rejected.
  • Used their list, but with mention of dispute and link within the section - rejected.
  • Validation from published source and government document provided
  • GroundZero and OwenX refuse to participate further.
  • I have reviewed the rules and find plenty of lee way to allow the publishing of RetailInvestor's conclusions (neutrality,original research, reliable sources, conflict of interest, etc).
  • I personally don't care about links to any reference - I care about the correctness of the facts.

How do you think we can help?

Summary of dispute by OwenX

This content dispute started in early December 2013, when 24.85.94.77 ("anon 24") and I tried to convince Ground Zero to include a section covering a non-mainstream view of the topic taken from a fringe website. Ground Zero, an experienced and diligent editor, convinced me that my approach was inconsistent with our usual practices, and we reached a consensus where only the reference is kept, per WP:FRINGE.

Alas, that was not good enough for anon 24, who kept trying to re-introduce the disputed sections, and insisted on having the entire article reflect this fringe viewpoint, using the argument that it was "mathematically provable" (which it likely is), and "our moral obligation" to present it. The whole thing came to a head on 29 December 2013, when anon 24 made a massive edit, restoring the disputed version into the lede, undoing the consensus version edited by Ground Zero, and--most disturbingly--removing six of the 14 references on the page. Based on that last part--the removal of references--I reverted anon's changes as an unexplained content removal, and issued him with a warning. Anon 24 reverted my reversion, and I issued another warning, with a more detailed explanation on the article's Talk page. At that point, anon 24 had the good sense to stop his disruptive editing and bring the case here. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ground Zero

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • The anon users are trying to challenge "received wisdom" and "official claims", and claim to have "mathematical proof" that these are wrong, as provided by RetailInvestor.org. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocating a pet point of view (WP:SOAPBOX).
  • My opinion or anyone else's opinion of RetailInvestor.org are not relevant because it is not a WP:reliable source. It is an anonymous blog that claims (WP:original research) that the common view of RRSPs is wrong, and that the Government of Canada, banks and accountants are lying. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a fringe theory (WP:FRINGE).
  • Three weeks into the debate, anon 24 finally came up with references from papers written in the United States in 1997 and 2008 which s/he claims support the RetailInvestor.org view. These may or may not support this view, and may or may not be applicable to Canada. Wikipedia should continue to reflect the common view of government, the accounting profession the financial sector until such time as the fringe view is more widely accepted.
  • On December 27, anon 207 re-wrote the article and destroyed the formatting, leaving links and references broken and inserting line breaks all through the article. I reverted this mess, and then re-incorporated references s/he had added to government websites, and restored valid formatting changes s/he had made.
  • I have not refused to participate further.
  • Although I do not think that RetailInvestor.org belongs in the "External links" section, I proposed to include it there as an "alternative view" in order to resolve this matter. The anon editors did not accept this compromise.
  • While anon 24 does not "care about links to any reference", I do, and so does Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 16:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 207.102.255.247

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Registered Retirement Savings Plan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello @OwenX:, @Ground Zero:, @24.85.94.77: and @207.102.255.247:, Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am a volunteer here at DRN and I will accept this case. I find that when there is prolonged disagreement on a broad issue there can often be hidden areas of potential compromise or consensus. So let us go through things step by step. The core of the dispute seems to be this Dec 28th edit which as been reverted back and forth a few times. I commend all of you for coming here rather than continuing to edit war. Now, lets look at the edit piece by piece:

Part 1

The following text was amended in that edit.

Does anyone have any issues or concerns about the text above? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I do. The only change anon 24 made to that paragraph is taking the citation at the end of it, and inserting it, again, between the word "Rules" and "determine", for no good reason, and contrary to WP:IC. Owen× ☎ 21:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I understand that the edit disturbed the content but is the text and its source as its represented above OK? @24.85.94.77: do you have any issues with this content or source? If not, we can move on to the next item.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with that. I did not realize I was duplicating a ref - sorry. Move on OK. I'll try to start checking in hourly.24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it seemed like an unintentional error, so we'll move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Part II

  1. Taxes on earned income, i.e., income from employment or self-employment to the extent contributed to the plan, are deferred until the eventual withdrawals from the plan. Taxes are deferred through a deduction claimed in calculating taxable income, i.e., amounts contributed are not subject to income tax in the year they are contributed.
  2. Income earned inside the plan is not taxed while within the plan
  3. The contributor's marginal tax rate when withdrawing funds may be higher (or lower) than the tax rate the contributor paid when making the original contribution.
  4. Canada has a variety of programs available to retired people whose benefits decrease as their income increases. By deferring the income until retirement, the additional income created at that time may reduce those benefits.

What are the concerns about this text and its sources? If this current text is OK then we can discuss proposed additions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that the large dispute about Benefits be deferred until the rest of the re-write is finished? How about moving this section I deleted in my edit down into the Benefits section - temporarily including both lists in that section? We can return to that section later.24.85.94.77 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On reviewing this, I would suggest the following change for additional clarity - replace the second point with this: "Taxation of income earned within the plan is deferred until the income is withdrawn from the plan." this is supported by the Chartered Professional Accountants reference. Ground Zero | t 12:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess GZ does not want my suggestion to finish the re-write edits first. Before starting this Benefits dispute can Keith make a decision whether to continue with the re-write edit or start with the Benefits dispute. The Benefits dispute includes not just this portion I deleted but also the Benefits section I created. I think it important to continue with the re-write edit because as the next paragraph's edit will show I believe there should be a clear distinction between what Retail Investor calls 'the mechanics' and 'the benefits'. We cannot argue about the benefits until we provide a clear understanding of the essential character of the accounts - their basic rules /mechanics.24.85.94.77 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I will check back in about 4 hours.24.85.94.77 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As Keith has volunteered his time to resolve this dispute, I am willing to let him drive the bus. Until we know who publishes Retail Investor, it is quite irrelevant to the discussion. Ground Zero | t 14:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm okay with GZ's amendment to the second point. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Both OwenX and GZ have agreed that point #2 could be replaced with "Taxation of income earned within the plan is deferred until the income is withdrawn from the plan." @24.85.94.77: is this agreeable to you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No - that is the big dispute.

  1. I think any list of benefits should come after a description of the basic 'how the accounts work'.
  2. I think the correct list of benefits is the list showing in the Benefits/Costs section I added.
  3. I think the list of acceptable references (for the purposes of supporting the received wisdom only) should be limited to the most 'legitimate' because that is the quality OX and GZ dispute about using Retail Investor's site as a reference. The three site I suggest are -- the government's Fin-Education page, Consumer Affairs page and the Ontario CPA's page.
  4. OX and GZ's list does not reflects what is listed at these references. For one example only, OX ad GZ do not list the tax reduction from contributions as a benefit, yet all three sites list that as their top benefit. This claim is commonly used in advice - e.g. when asked which is better to pay down a mortgage or contribute to an RRSP, the advice is "contribute to the RRSP to get the tax refund and then use the refund to paydown the mortgage.
  5. The benefits claimed by the received wisdom can be shown to be factually wrong. One example only ---- the benefit from deferring employment taxes will always exactly equal and offset the cost of full taxes paid at withdrawal on income earned in the plan. Net, there is no benefit. See the Nitty Gritty section. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Some comments on User 24's statements above:
2. The "Benefits / Costs" section proposed by User 24 is wordy and confusing. The current version uses plain language and is easier to understand. User 24's version raises a comparison to TFSAs which is not germane at this point the article - a comparison may be appropriate later in the article in its own section.
"4. OX ad GZ do not list the tax reduction from contributions as a benefit, yet all three sites list that as their top benefit" -- User 24's complaint is bogus. The text in the article as it stands refers to "effects" not "benefits" and explains the tax deduction clearly: "Taxes... are deferred until the eventual withdrawals from the plan. Taxes are deferred through a deduction claimed in calculating taxable income, i.e., amounts contributed are not subject to income tax in the year they are contributed."
"5. The benefits claimed by the received wisdom can be shown to be factually wrong." -- This is the crux of the dispute: User 24's insistence that Wikipedia be used as a platform to promote the view of an anonymous blog that the Canadian government, accounting profession and financial sector are lying to us. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's take this one step at a time:
  1. It's clear to now that the list I've presented at the top of this thread is in dispute.
  2. The content is in dispute
  3. The location of the list is being disputed
Let's deal with the location issue first since I think it's the simplest one. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to move list from the lead paragraph to the body of the article

@24.85.94.77: has proposed that the 'list of effects' in the lead be moved to the body of the article. According to WP:LEAD the lead section of an article should define the topic and summarize the main points of the entire article. I think the first paragraph does a good job of that but the 'list of effects' in the lead section appears to be incorrectly formatted WP:PROSE and gives undue WP:WEIGHT to specific details for one section of the article. All of which WP:LEAD says to avoid. Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks everyone. I've moved the RRSP Effects list to the Taxation section. Let's move on and continue our content discussion in a new section.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

How to proceed

Regarding the order in which we proceed. I am open to putting this section of the discussion aside and coming back to it, as needed if that's more productive. Is that what everyone wants?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Since a majority vote is required, and no doubt I will lose ... Does this also mean that a) this list of benefits will appear before a basic explanation of 'how the account works'? and b) my list of benefits won't be even considered to replace theirs?24.85.94.77 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Well not exactly. First, WP prizes the process of WP:Consensus and frowns on voting. That means we discuss and find common ground or compromise amongst most or all of the participants. Also the consensus shouldn't violate or contradict policy. So its a fluid thing not a hard vote count. Another point is that this discussion (or any discussion on a content noticeboard) is not binding and may be superseded by a future talk page discussion or a WP:RFC etc. So there is lots of wiggle room there too. Mainly this forum is about moderated discussion to enhance the possibility of compromise and resolution. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't simply ask OX why he undid (twice) my edits (ignoring the Benefits issue)? What exactly were his problems. If he would identify them, then we could discuss them. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The need to deal with the re-write edits before the Benefits conflict was proven by GZ in his response #4 to my list of 5 disputes above ..." The text in the article as it stands refers to "effects" not "benefits" and explains the tax deduction clearly." There needs to be a clear distinction between 'rules/howitworks/mechanics' and benefits/cost(net effects). Until the how-it-works paragraph of the top section is accepted there will be circular arguing in the Benefits dispute.24.85.94.77 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously OX had some objections to your edit. Since a general discussion on the talk page didn't work I'd prefer we go piece by piece through the edit rather than going back to a general discussion which is non-specific and can easily get bogged down. So far we are making progress. We have found agreement for the first paragraph and the move of the RRSP Effects to the Taxation section. I know its slow, but this is how mediation works best IMO. Also keep in mind that even in successful mediation not all parties will be 100% happy with the outcome. So flexibility and patience are encouraged.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Part III: Taxation section

OK, we are still discussing this Dec 28th edit. We can discuss the RRSP (tax) effects list later, but for now I'm moving straight through the edit in question. The next change in the edit was:

  • Existing text:
    • For the most part, contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable. Because Canada has a progressive tax system, taxes are reduced at the highest marginal rate. Increases in the value of the plan assets (whether capital gains, interest income or other) are not subject to income or other taxes in Canada while inside the accounts. Disbursements from an RRSP are taxable as income at the time of withdrawal.
    • This tax system is similar to tax-deferred accounts in other countries, where contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income, e.g., 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts in the United States, and Self-invested personal pensions in the United Kingdom.
  • Text proposed by IP 24.85.94.77:
    • The tax system is similar to accounts in other countries, all of which are known as tax-deferred accounts, because contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income. E.g., American 401(k) and IRAs, British SIPPs, Irish Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (RPSA), and German Riester pensions. Contributions can be claimed as tax deductions, income earned in the accounts is not taxed, and withdrawals are fully taxed as income.

I notice that neither the existing nor proposed text are sourced. Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. I suggest this paragraph be included in the top section because as it stands all we have told a reader is that RRSPs are accounts with lots of rules. The essence of the RRSP is its exempt, exempt, taxable status. Without that knowledge the reader is left with nothing of value.
  2. All the information in the existing text is included in the proposed. But it is less wordy. Except ..
  3. The sentence about marginal tax rates has been moved down to the contributions section. It has nothing specific to do with RRSPs - it is a general analysis process - and does not belong in the top section. And it is not actually correct - It is not the highest tax rate, it is the highest marginal rate for each individual, and it is the rate calculated as 'change in tax' divided by 'change in tax base'. So it is quite possible that the rate is influenced by the next tax bracket down. See wiki page Tax rates.
  4. This tax information is so basic to Canadians that a reference would be redundant. No one will disagree. If it is put in the top section there will already be the link to the Revenue Canada page 24.85.94.77 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with anon 24's points #3 and #4. The mention of the progressive tax system doesn't warrant a mention so early in the article, and ample references are available on the wikilinked articles. However, once the sentence beginning with, "Because Canada has..." is removed, I still prefer the original, cleaner wording. Owen× ☎ 01:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that a cleaner wording would be more concise and to the point. E.g. saying all "income earned is not taxed" is inclusive and accurate. Adding a partial list of types of income only muddies the waters and gives the impression they limit the types of income. The phrase 'for the most part' again muddies the waters and should be covered in the Contributions section. Adding that tax deductions 'reduce tax payable' adds nothing to the cleaner statement that 'cont can be claimed as tax deductions'. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is room for compromise. I have adjusted the current version to address the concerns above. I do not agree that this should be written for Canadians who already understand RRSPs. A general Wikipedia article like this one should be written for people who do not already understand the subject, including Canadians who do not know much about RRSPs (e.g., high school students) and non-Canadian readers of this international encyclopedia. For example, we should not assume that the reader already knows that a tax deduction reduces tax payable. As a tax professional, I know how many people do not understand what a tax deduction is compared to say a tax exemption or a tax credit. It is worth explaining. Also, User 24's version violates Wikipedia style guidelines like WP:ACRONYM. I also think that we should explain how the tax treatment works before drawing analogies to others countries, which may mean nothing to Canadian readers and readers from countries not on that list. I think the German and Irish examples are a little obscure and need not be included. Also, 401k's are more analogous to Registered Pension Plans in Canada than to RRSPs. It is worth distinguishing between capital gains and other types of income for clarity since the Canadian tax system, like many others, treats capital gains differently from other types on income, and used to not tax them at all. The anon user's statement "This tax information is so basic to Canadians that a reference would be redundant. No one will disagree" shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and arrogance. Of course there should be references.
Proposed compromise version:
  • Contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable. Taxes are generally reduced at the highest tax rate faced by the contributor, and may move the contributor to a tax bracket with a lower tax rate. Increases in the value of the plan assets (from capital gains or other income) are not subject to income or other taxes in Canada while inside the accounts. Amounts withdrawn from an RRSP are taxable as income when they are withdrawn.[2]
  • This tax system is similar to tax-deferred accounts in other countries, where contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income, e.g., Individual Retirement Accounts in the United States,[3] and Self-invested personal pensions in the United Kingdom.
Ground Zero | t 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Great, happy to see there is some common ground between the involved parties. I would echo the comment that the article should not assume the reader is from Canada or knows anything bout the topic. Any comments on GZ's proposed draft? Do we have any additonal sources to support the draft text?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I got caught in an edit conflict while revising my comments, which included adding another reference. Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Oops! sorry about that and thanks for the citations! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with GZ's version, with two exceptions:
  • I think the phrase "and may move the contributor to a tax bracket with a lower tax rate" should be removed. It adds nothing but confusion, and is irrelevant to this article. People incorrectly believe there is some special advantage to "moving to a lower tax bracket", when in fact all it means is that after the tax deduction, your taxable income no longer reaches the higher bracket, so the portion of it that exceeded that threshold (and only that portion!) is now taxed at a lower rate. If we want to add a numeric example that demonstrates this principle, we can do so in a separate section.
  • I'd like to spell out all three common sources of increase in plan asset value, namely, interest, dividends and capital appreciation. All three are spelled out in the CRA guides and circulars - in this particular order, and the list is short enough to include in full. There is an entire generation of pensioners who still think of RRSPs as comprised of GICs and other fixed income, so a phrase like "from capital gains or other income" will be confusing. Owen× ☎ 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with most of GZ points. No way is it common ground.

  1. I suggest this paragraph be included in the top section because as it stands all we have told a reader is that RRSPs are accounts with lots of rules. The essence of the RRSP is its exempt, exempt, taxable status. Without that knowledge the reader is left with nothing of value.
  2. There are no space constraints. The inclusion of a more complete list of TDAs shows that this structure is used all over. Maybe the reader has come from Germany and the analogy would help their understanding. There is upside without downside from their inclusion. I do not agree that the 401k is not a tax-deferred account, not using the same exempt, exempt, taxed structure as the RRSP. If you want to use the full name of the account instead of their acronym that is fine with me.
  3. References for those accounts in other countries is far more complete by sending them to their wiki page - than to an offtopic magazine article.
  4. If you want to claim that claiming a tax reduction will reduce your taxes owing, then you must also say that including withdrawals into income will increase taxes owing, and that sheltering income will reduce taxes otherwise owing on investment income.
  5. Claiming a tax deduction will not 'move' anyone's tax tax bracket. All the other income will remain taxed at exactly the same rates as if no deduction claimed. The tax reduction is not at the individual's 'highest tax rate' as I explained above. I reiterate my Point #3 at the start.
  6. 'Income' is inclusive of all types. There is no excuse to muddy the waters with an incomplete list. Why talk about 'income or other taxes'? What on earth is that intended to mean? "Income earned in the account is not taxed." Simple, inclusive, covering all possibilities, understandable.
  7. The claim that income is protected 'while inside the account' is pointless wording unless you are trying to sneak in the claim that the income is taxed on withdrawal. That is false. Withdrawals are taxed, not income. GZ is moving into a discussion the Benefits/Costs. I cannot object more strongly.
  8. Why is it better to say "Amounts withdrawn from an RRSP are taxable as income when they are withdrawn" instead of "Withdrawals are fully taxed as income."??
  9. I agree that putting the tax rules before the list of tax deferred accounts makes sense. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposed version for placement in top section:
RRSPs help savers by reducing taxes. Contributions can be claimed as tax deductions (reducing taxes), income earned in the accounts is not taxed, and withdrawals are fully taxed as income (increasing taxes). The tax system is similar to accounts in other countries known as tax-deferred accounts, because contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income. E.g., American 401(k) and Individual Retirement Accounts, British Self-invested personal pensions, Irish Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (RPSA), and German Riester pensions. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This version combines the worst of all worlds. It is incorrect, incomplete, confusing, and contains unnecessary verbiage. RRSP does not reduce taxes; it shifts taxable income from one tax year to another. If used wisely, it can be used to reduce taxes, but quite often does the exact opposite, such as when college kids are encouraged to make contributions while at the lowest tax brackets, and end up being forced to make sizeable withdrawals from their RRIF at much higher brackets. The version also removes much useful detail present in GZ's version. But at least we get the Irish RPSA, with which I assume everyone is familiar, right? I'm sorry, I see nothing salvageable in this version. Owen× ☎ 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Some further changes to reflect OwenX's comments and some of User 24's. I can live without the lower tax bracket comment, but in that case it may be better to drop the sentence altogether. the reason for leaving out 401k's is that they are not set up by individuals, but by employers. I think it is more useful to draw the parallel to RPPs in Canada, and then compare RRSPs to individual accounts in other countries like IRAs and SIPPs. If User 24 can provide references for saying the treatment is the same in Ireland and German accounts, I can live with it for the sake of compromise. I have incorporated some wording from Jack Mintz (probably the biggest name in Canadian tax policy, and from a paper he wrote that was published by the Department of Finance) to clarify the taxation of income earned in the plan (exempt as it is earned, taxed when it becomes part of a withdrawal).

Proposed compromise version 3:

  • Contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable for the year in which the contributions are made. Investment income (interest and dividends) and capital gains earned in the plans are exempt in the year they are earned. Withdrawals of built-up income and contributions are taxable as income when they are withdrawn. This is the same tax treatment provided to Registered Pension Plans established by employers.[4][5]
  • Other countries provide similar treatment of tax-deferred accounts established by individual investors, i.e., contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income and tax is paid when amounts are withdrawn: Individual Retirement Accounts in the United States,[6] and Self-invested personal pensions in the United Kingdom.

Ground Zero | t 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job, GZ! I like this version. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Ground Zero | t 22:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are my objections:

  1. This paragraph should be included in the top section because as it stands all we have told a reader is that RRSPs are accounts with lots of rules. The essence of the RRSP is its exempt, exempt, taxable status. Without that knowledge the reader is left with nothing of value.
  2. It is not worth fighting over the specific list of other accounts. So I'll accept GZ's second paragraph as it stands, except ....
  3. There is no point in mentioning 'who establishes' the account. Canadian employers 'establish' RRSP accounts for their employees, just like 401ks. We just don't give them another name (other than maybe mention 'group').
  4. Contributions do not have to be claimed as deductions in the year contributed. Nor do they ever need to be claimed.
  5. I won't fight over a list of possible incomes, but there is no need to further limit the generality by using the word 'Investment'. A lot of people owning GICs would not consider their assets as 'investments'.
  6. This section is not for pushing your concept of Benefits/Costs.
    1. I'll drop my proposed first sentence. Never dreamed anyone would disagree.
    2. The withdrawal need not be thought of, much less labled as the combination of 'built-up income and contributions".
    3. Incomes earned in the plan are not taxed - period. They are not "exempt in the year they are earned". The point to be made is 'that nothing happens' as opposed to taxes applying if in a taxable account. GZ here is pushing the idea that income is taxed on withdrawal.
    4. It is 'selling' RRSPs to talk about reductions of tax at the start, but omitting to mention the increase in taxes at the end.
Proposed version 4 for placement in top section:
RRSP contributions are deductible from taxable income, reducing taxes payable. Income (interest and dividends) and capital gains earned in the plans are not taxed. Withdrawals are fully taxed as income, increasing taxes payable. Other countries provide similar treatment of tax-deferred accounts, i.e. contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income and tax is paid when amounts are withdrawn: Individual Retirement Accounts in the United States,[7] and Self-invested personal pensions in the United Kingdom. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)24.85.94.77 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In the Income Tax Act, the term "deductible" means "can be claimed as a tax deduction", so I don't see how this cumbersome wording is any better than GZ's version 3. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine, have changed the proposal above. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments on some of User 24's points:

1. This paragraph should be included in the top section because as it stands all we have told a reader is that RRSPs are accounts with lots of rules.
I agree. The "Taxation" sub-heading should be removed so that this para appears in the top section.
3. There is no point in mentioning 'who establishes' the account. Canadian employers 'establish' RRSP accounts for their employees, just like 401ks. We just don't give them another name (other than maybe mention 'group').
You really have to read up on this subject. 401ks are employer pension plans, like Registered Pension Plans in Canada. IRAs and RRSPs are generally set up by individuals. While employers can set up Groups RRSPs, individuals cannot set up RPPs.
4. Contributions do not have to be claimed as deductions in the year contributed. Nor do they ever need to be claimed.
I will adjust the wording to reflect this by replacing "when the contributions are made" to "when the contributions are claimed".
6. This section is not for pushing your concept of Benefits/Costs. The withdrawal need not be thought of, much less labled as the combination of 'built-up income and contributions". Incomes earned in the plan are not taxed - period. They are not "exempt in the year they are earned". The point to be made is 'that nothing happens' as opposed to taxes applying if in a taxable account. GZ here is pushing the idea that income is taxed on withdrawal.
If I contribute $1000 to an RRSP earn $200 in income on it and then withdraw $1200, I pay tax on the $1200 I have withdrawn, which is composed of my original contribution and the income earned in the plan. My withdrawals = contributions + income. And I have Jack Mintz, the leading tax policy expert in the country, on my side in referring to withdrawals as "built-up income and contributions", and I have a reference to a paper he wrote for the Department of Finance. I am not going to drop this to reflect the fringe view of the retailinvestor blog published by someone who won't reveal his/her name.
GetSmarterAboutMoney.ca agrees, as does the Royal Bank of Canada, and The Globe and Mail and Toroonto Star newspapers.
It is 'selling' RRSPs to talk about reductions of tax at the start, but omitting to mention the increase in taxes at the end.
The proposed wording makes it clear that withdrawals are taxed. Please read it again - especially the part that says: "Withdrawals of built-up income and contributions are taxable as income when they are withdrawn." I am not trying to "sell" RRSPs. I do not work in the financial sector, and have nohing to gain from convincing people to contribute to RRSPs.
Ground Zero | t 00:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ref list
  1. ^ Canada Revenue Agency: Registered Retirement Savings Plan
  2. ^ Canada Revenue Agency: Registered Retirement Savings Plan
  3. ^ "Rollovers of U.S. Retirement Plans to Canadian RRSPs", Jamie Golombek, Forum Magazine, 2004-04-08
  4. ^ Canada Revenue Agency: Registered Retirement Savings Plan
  5. ^ Jack Mintz, "Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Research" for the Research Working Group on Retirement Income Adequacy, Department of Finance Canada
  6. ^ "Rollovers of U.S. Retirement Plans to Canadian RRSPs", Jamie Golombek, Forum Magazine, 2004-04-08
  7. ^ "Rollovers of U.S. Retirement Plans to Canadian RRSPs", Jamie Golombek, Forum Magazine, 2004-04-08

Part III: Taxation section (arbitrary break #1)

Proposed compromise version 5 for placement in top section:

  • Contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable for the year in which the contributions are claimed. Investment income (interest and dividends) and capital gains earned in the plans are exempt in the year they are earned. Withdrawals of built-up income and contributions are taxable as income when they are withdrawn. This is the same tax treatment provided to Registered Pension Plans established by employers.[1][2]
  • Other countries provide similar treatment of tax-deferred accounts established by individual investors, i.e., contributions are considered to have been made with savings from before-tax income and tax is paid when amounts are withdrawn: Individual Retirement Accounts in the United States,[3] and Self-invested personal pensions in the United Kingdom.

Ground Zero | t 00:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ref list
  1. ^ Canada Revenue Agency: Registered Retirement Savings Plan
  2. ^ Jack Mintz, "Summary Report on Retirement Income Adequacy Research" for the Research Working Group on Retirement Income Adequacy, Department of Finance Canada
  3. ^ "Rollovers of U.S. Retirement Plans to Canadian RRSPs", Jamie Golombek, Forum Magazine, 2004-04-08

I'm happy with GZ's version 5. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all. 24.85.94.77 (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, a couple of notes from my end.
  • The opening paragraphs of a WP article are called the lead and WP:LEAD says it should be a neutral, evenly weighted summary of the entire article, not just the section(s) or information that we feel is most important. So moving the taxation section up into the lead would not be appropriate. However, a brief summary of the taxation section could and should be included in the lead paragraphs. But that is the least of our worries right now because so far there is no clear agreement on the content.
  • I want to caution everyone to be mindful of their tone. I understand this process is slow and frustrating but WP requires civility at all times and we should try to remain calm and respectful and should [not] be accusing other editors of pushing a point of view or having ulterior motives etc.
  • Lastly, I want to thank everyone for their perseverance and continued participation and willingness to compromise.
What I'd like to do now is go through the most recently proposed version line by line and see if we can identify where exactly the problem lies. During this process we should keep in mind that WP content is comprises of summaries of the most reliable secondary sources. Regardless of our personal knowledge or beliefs our purpose here is to accurately summarize the most reliable sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair points about WP:LEAD. For the lead paragraph, then, I propose to add the text in italics to the first two sentences:
"A Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) is a type of Canadian account for holding savings and investment assets. RRSPs have special tax advantages. Introduced in 1957, the RRSP's purpose is to promote savings for retirement by employees and self-employed people."
This text is borrowed from GetSmarterAboutMoney.ca.[1]
I'm not crazy about the lead paragraph. It does focus too much on rules rather than function, but don't want to open any more cans of worms. I would only suggest that the remainder of the paragraph after the first two sentences be split into a separate paragraph to improve readability. Ground Zero | t 12:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Part III Taxation section: proposal 5 part A

1) Text: Contributions to RRSPs are deductible from taxable income, reducing income tax payable for the year in which the contributions are claimed.


2) Text: Investment income (interest and dividends) and capital gains earned in the plans are exempt in the year they are earned.

  • Source - RBC Royal Bank website says: "The income earned in your RRSP is not taxed until it is withdrawn.While your investments sit in your RRSP, their growth is tax sheltered and so the total value may grow more quickly."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


3) Text: Withdrawals of built-up income and contributions are taxable as income when they are withdrawn.


4) Text: This is the same tax treatment provided to Registered Pension Plans established by employers

  • Source: ??? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • "Registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) and employer-sponsored registered pension plans (RPPs) are the two main tax-assisted vehicles for retirement income planning in Canada (see Data source and definitions). Until 1957, only RPPs were available. An amendment to the Income Tax Act that year established RRSPs as a parallel tax-free savings vehicle for all employed taxpayers, but especially for those without RPP coverage." [2]
    • "Contributions to RPPs and RRSPs are deductible from income for tax purposes and investment income earned in these plans, and in RRIFs, is not subject to income tax. Pension payments and withdrawals from RPPs and RRSPs and RRIFs are included in income and taxed at regular rates."[3]
Ground Zero | t 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this process

My proposal #4 was accepted by OX and ignored by GZ, and now by Keith. GZ's proposals have become worse and worse from my POV, so continuing would only move things in a worse, not better, direction. The situation was better before I started this process.24.85.94.77 (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where I "accepted" your proposal #4. The fact that I addressed only one problem with it doesn't imply a tacit agreement with the rest of it. Owen× ☎ 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal #4 had not a single reference to a reliable source. Not one. It does not meet Wikipedia standards, so it makes more sense to focus on my proposal, which does have references. I have adjusted my proposal several times to reflect your comments, and addressed the ones that I did not reflect in my proposal. Ground Zero | t 03:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for our personal opinions or personal knowledge, no matter what our education, experience etc. Our job as WP editors is to neutrally summarize quality, secondary sources. I thought that after so many versions had been submitted and rejected that we needed to go line by line. I have not accepted anything. What I said above was: "What I'd like to do now is go through the most recently proposed version line by line and see if we can identify where exactly the problem lies". I simply took the most recent proposed version as a starting point for a discussion that might bring out specific objections and the need for modification or additions on the way to a more complete consensus. I also understand that this is a slow, and painstaking process and can be frustrating for the participants. So I respect every editor's right to withdraw from the process if they feel the need to.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Keith, you did a commendable job, and likely achieved as much as could be achieved, under the circumstances. Both Ground Zero and I have been on the project for many years, and I believe that if a version that appeased all three editors could have been found, this dispute would have never made it to DRN.
Thank you for your patience and diligence. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Next steps

I think that we now have a number of really good changes to make to the article. As the editor who initiated this dispute resolution process has now withdrawn, I would like to propose the following next steps:

  • This process would be closed.
  • I would make the changes to the Taxation section proposed above in "proposal 5" with references added.
  • I would change the lead paragraph as discussed above.
  • If User 24 or another user wants to make further changes, s/he would propose them on the article's talk page, or would return here to re-open this process.
  • I would review the article and propose further changes on the article's talk page.

Any objections? Thank you, Keithbob, for your patience and guidance on this dispute. Ground Zero | t 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Owen× ☎ 01:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for taking the time to participate and for remaining civil and patient throughout. Although we did not achieve 100% consensus I feel we did find some common ground and moved the discussion forward. Good luck with article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Map dispute

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.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Comment: as I've said, others has contested this and it has not been resolved.

Location of dispute

  • NOTE: Evidence (a link) of prior discussion is needed. A link to the Administrators Noticeboard is not appropriate evidence of a prior, extensive discussion of content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Users involved

Dispute overview

This map shows Israeli-occupied territories in a different color than others. It shows them in white, instead of grey as the other countries/regions have. As you can see in that file history, there has been a dispute for a long time. Nothing was resolved in the noticeboard at Commons.

Coordinator's note: WP:DRN has a prerequisite for significant prior discussion. A short thread at a the Administrator's Noticeboard does not qualify. Please take the discussion back to the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See above. This has been contested by several persons with no resolution found.

How do you think we can help?

It can be easy resolved by changing to this map instead of keeping the current.

Summary of dispute by NordNordWest

Is User:IRISZOOM@en.wp = Sepsis II@commons? I don't know. I have never discussed anything with User:IRISZOOM, so I have got no dispute with him. Is en.wp the place to discuss maps which were uploaded at Commons? No. If IRISZOOM doesn't like File:Israel location map.svg he may use a different one and if he doesn't like any map which can be found at Commons he is invited to upload a new one, here or at Commons. And then he can discuss the use of his new map with the community of en.wp if anybody thinks that has to be discussed. Regards, NNW (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's notes

Hi and welcome to DRN. This forum is to discuss content only so I've reduced this link [ XXX] to a [URL] instead of a section heading. Unless someone gives a compelling reason for its presence in this case I will likely remove it altogether. I realize this case is still being filed and maybe the filing party is not familiar with how to file a case, so I'm granting some lee way on this for now. Please let me, or other volunteers know if you need any assistance. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

URL to AN removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi. What do you mean? I want to discuss the image used on several articles. Does that not count as content? If not, I will go forward with this to the admins's noticeboard. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the map is perfectly reasonable - the areas in the lighter grey are a different status to the areas in white or dark grey - they are not independent countries like Jordan or Syria, but they are also not part of Israel. With the exception of Gaza, the light grey areas are effectively controlled by Israel and in some cases annexed to the country - I think the map in it's current form helpfully highlights this. Number 57 12:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Israel has no right to them whatsoever so giving them a different colour is wrong. It gives the view that they somehow are more a part of Israel than for example Jordan is. It's not relevant what Israel occupies, that is not what a general map should now.
If it's about they are not independent countries, why are then Golan Heights also in white (or dark grey is more correct) when it's recognized as a part of Syria? And if it's about who controls what, then Gaza Strip (though Israel controls much) and some areas of the West Bank (A and B) should have a different colour. All this makes it clear that the goal is to somehow show Israel bigger than it is. This is OR and POV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You are right that Israel has no right to the territories in question, but the fact is that it currently controls them. The map reflects reality, not the theoretical situation that people would like to see. I'm not sure you understand what OR is if you are claiming that this map is original research - it merely shows the actual lines of control of the territories in the region at present.
If the goal was to show Israel as being bigger than it is, then the areas in question would be the same colour as Israel and there would be no borders marked between the two. Number 57 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The map should present the territories as others show them. Showing the occupied territories as different than the other countries is not supported. It's OR. By making the colours different, Israel is made bigger, even if they are not show in the same colours as the recognized part of Israel.
What you don't understand is that the map should show Israel's territory, not "reality". It's doesn't matter if it's about "the theoretical situation that people would like to see", it's still a fact that they are not a part of Israel. Showing the occupied territories in a different colour than other countries/regions in a general map is wrong. The map is not supposed to show what Israel controls. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
"The map should present the territories as others show them". Here is the BBC map of Israel. It shows the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights in a different shade to Israel and the surrounding territories. CNN do the same. This is clearly not original research. Number 57 18:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Some do and certainly when they want to show which territories are hotly debated. But on a general map, it's not acceptable. I still do not accept that it's "perfectly reasonable" because they are not "independent countries" and controlled by Israel. If that would be the case, it would be hard to explain why Golan Heights is also presented in a different colour and why the areas controlled by Palestinians still got the same colour as the rest of the occupied territories. You have not explained this.
As I've said, we should show Israel's territory and not what you call "reality". When was it decided that we should show territories a country controls? It haven't and until then, any general map that show anything other than Israel proper is not consistent with the policies. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
First you claim that it's original research. Then that's disproved because major media organisations use they same type of map so now it's just "unacceptable"? According to who? The map shows Israel's territory very clearly (in white). It also shows the disputed/occupied territories and differentiates them from the surrounding countries. This is perfectly reasonable and easy to understand - which is probably why organisations like the BBC and CNN do the same. Number 57 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I called it unacceptable then and calls it that now too. I base it on the fact that it's OR and POV. I have not changed that and it's unclear why you think so. I am not disputing that the occupied territories (and they are that, even if some prefer "disputed") are shown in a different colour when to show which territories are hotly debated. That makes sense. But on a general map, that is not acceptable because they have nothing to do with Israel. You have brought up different arguments, which I refuted as recently as in my last reply and didn't get any answer. But as I said then, I say now: when was it decided that we include territories any country controls? Never and it shouldn't be different here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
How can it be original research if organisations like the BBC and CNN do exactly the same thing? As for the claim that the territories "have nothing to do with Israel", you are either living in an alternate universe or lying to advance your own line of argument. The territories are inextricably linked to Israel due to the ongoing conflict and the fact that Israel directly controls large parts of them. Number 57 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not supported because we know how Israel's recognized territory look. They have nothing to do with Israel in regards to that they are not a part of it. No one is disputing that some parts of them are controlled by Israel but as I've said and you keep ignoring, when did we show occupied territories a country controls? --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The locality maps for File:File:India location map.svg and Pakistan include the areas of Jammu and Kashir that they occupy. Number 57 20:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your examples. However, I don't agree that they are correct. Kashmir is not regarded as occupied territory by the international community, just disputed. That's why I don't think your examples are correct because it is not similar situation. Even if there are some examples, that doesn't mean that it's right. That is how I view it. But we are all free to have our interpretation. So as I've said before, I think it will be best to go forward with this and see what the community thinks. Especially now that the other part (NordNordWest) have answered and there is not much more to say about this here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not Sepsis II. I made it clear that others, including Sepsis II, have had a dispute about this and as it was not solved, I brought it here.
I am not here "to discuss maps which were uploaded at Commons". The issue is clear: Wikipedia has a policy about OR and NPOV. Therefore it is not accepted to link to such maps. As you yourself mention, I will discuss this with the community. I will contact the admins and ask them if it's okay to replace that map with the other one. The case here can be closed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The map currently used shows a view held by some Israelis, rejected by the international community. I tried to discuss it at commons but found out they have no WP:V or WP:NPOV policies plus they engage in many disgusting activities. I would have manually deleted all links to the image but I don't have much time or programming abilities. I support IRISZOOM's suggestion to replace the map with the one he linked to above. Sepsis II (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not up to the community or any admin of en:wp to discuss how file:Israel location map.svg shows that area because it is a Commons file and WP rules about OR or NPOV do not apply there. You still don't understand the rules of Commons. NNW (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Again, it's not about discussing if the file is allowed on Commons. It's about discussing it if it's acceptable to use it on Wikipedia, which I don't think it is because we have those policies here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
If you write I will contact the admins and ask them if it okay to replace that map with the other one then you want to discuss something that concerns Commons, not en:wp. Commons rules say: no, it's not okay. You can upload that map with a new name but you are not allowed to replace the other map. And for all this you don't need to invite me to this page as somebody who is part of a dispute. NNW (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's clear what I was talking about. I was responding to you who wrote "If IRISZOOM doesn't like File:Israel location map.svg he may use a different one and if he doesn't like any map which can be found at Commons he is invited to upload a new one, here or at Commons. And then he can discuss the use of his new map with the community of en.wp if anybody thinks that has to be discussed". I began with saying "I am not here 'to discuss maps which were uploaded at Commons'". I then explained that I will discuss this with the community. I will contact the admins and ask them if it's okay to replace the map. It's clear that "replace" here refers to uploading another map, as you yourself suggested and I answered, and replace it if admins allow it. I did not say overwrite. Did I? --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is only about en.wiki, ignoring the messed up commons. The map does not represent Palestine or Syria correctly and needs to be deleted from all en.wiki articles per en.wiki's WP:NPOV. Sepsis II (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree. I will seek admin approval for that as soon as I am done here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE: Hi all, I need to let you know that DRN is not a substitute for talk page discussion. (see top of this page). The link provided by the filing party to the Administrator's Noticeboard does not qualify as significant prior talk page discussion. If a link to a significant prior talk page discussion is not provided within 24hrs, then I am going to close this discussion and recommend you continue on an article talk page, a project talk page or other appropriate content forums. Thanks for your understanding. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

The discussion started here, which was linked in the noticeboard I linked to here. I think it was clear than no resolution could be found so I went here. You can close it because as I've said, I think it's best to go forward with this and see what the community thinks. Best regards. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this dispute, but I'd like to caution IRISZOOM against taking this to an admin board as the next step. You seem to be ignoring the advice given by User:Keithbob that this should go to a regular talk page for a content discussion. If nobody is trying to link to this map from an enwiki article, then there is no dispute on the English Wikipedia and the matter can be closed. The WP:DRN is not a venue for appealing decisions taken at Commons. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read what I have written several times. The map is used here at Wikipedia. It's not about decisions taken at Commons or their policies.
I am not ignoring his advice. I thought that admins was the next step to take after coming to this Dispute resolution noticeboard. That's why I am talking about "discussing it with the community" as I thought it was the last option. I think he misunderstod because the issue was discussed at the talk page at Commons, which I linked to in my last reply, not only at the noticeboard there. Now that you wrote this, I searched and saw Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I didn't think on talk pages because it was uploaded at Commons. However, I see that it can be discussed here. I think the File talk has less viewers so would it be okay to write in the Noticeboard? --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Consider the wisdom of WP:FORUMSHOP. To save yourself from wasting others' time, examine Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Israel location map.svg to see if this map has already been discussed anywhere on an enwiki talk page. If nothing obvious shows up, try posting on the talk page of WP:IPCOLL to see what other *content* editors think. If you have not done a content discussion, admins are unlikely to intervene. Since the history of File:Israel location map.svg shows a dispute at Commons in October 2013 (involving User:NordNordWest and User:Sepsis II), you should look for any discussions that have happened on enwiki regarding the map since October. A change in the map at Commons could have affected a number of our articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the map from the beginning and saw the dispute in the File history. I saw that the changes by Sepsis II, amongst others, were reverted. Then I saw the discussions at Commons and then wrote here at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Because I didn't see the talk page, which any way has very few viewers, I went here. I didn't start any discussion before this one as I saw it was clear that it couldn't been resolved then, based on NordNordWest's comments, and thought that it may change if starting a discussion here. As you say that this is wrong, I accept that but I just want to explain how I thought. I did come here too see what other content editors think. As the issue has not been resolved, I will go to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which seems to be the right place. Is that right or wrong? --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Commons should be ignored, if you want to change the offensive map to the one you suggested than just do so, there is no need for all this talk, just go ahead and cut all link between en.wiki and that propagandic map. Sepsis II (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@IRISZOOM, before you submit at WP:NPOVN you might read the advice at the top of that noticeboard: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." It does not appear that you meet that requirement because you have not yet raised the question on any regular talk page on enwiki. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that but as I brought up the topic here, I thought that counted because discussing it here or on the talk page shouldn't make any difference. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your input and discussion. IRISZOOM came to this forum in good faith and hopefully he/she has now received sufficient information so that they can take the next step. And yes, WP:NPOV is a content forum but it might be more appropriate to discuss the issue first on the talk page of the article where you would like to place the map. Or just place the map in the article and see if anyone objects and then go to the talk page if someone reverts the map per WP:BRD. In any case I'm closing this thread now. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Marques Brownlee‎

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

there seems to be a different understanding of how ref are used. most of the article contains youtube videos. mainly self-published. these are the primary videos being used to bolster notability. Some of them are not considered needed or RS by this editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

tried doing a reliable source[9] , and excessive talk page.

How do you think we can help?

independent review of article and ref used

Summary of dispute by Sportfan5000

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Inayity has a strict view on video sources that does not align with the rest of Wikipedia, even online videos can be reliable sources, and even for a BLP. Sometimes video sources are acceptable, and this was pointed out at the reliable sources noticeboard, [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#Can videos be RS in a BLP?]. Despite that they has insisted on filling up the article history, the article's talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, here, and now an AFD page, with accusations how I just don't understand what is reliable or a primary source. And how all video sources just must not be used, even trying to set limits on how many were allowed in the article[10]. It's been very frustrating but i saw no reason to have the same circular discussion in five places. I am posting here to show I have been willing and communication about this issue all along. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Marques Brownlee‎ discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

24 hour closing notice: It appears that one of the two editors involved in this dispute does not care to participate here. Unless that editor chooses to join in (which s/he has no obligation to do: participation in mediated dispute resolution is voluntary), this listing will be closed as futile after 16:00 UTC on January 17, 2014. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Peter O'Toole

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

Nationality/ethnicity of Peter O'Toole in lede, and to a lesser degree, the infobox.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page (scroll entire page so as not to miss anything as comments are not in consistent order)

How do you think we can help?

Work your magic, combined with enforceable directives.

Summary of dispute by Shearonink

Reliable sources have different information about this man's citizenship, nationality and birthplace, all of which are also open to different interpretations, starting with the two birth certificates which indicate O'Toole was born in two different cities in two different countries. I thought my sourced edit that delineated O'Toole as being "an actor of Irish heritage, born in either Leeds or Connemara" with "nationality: Irish"/"citizenship: United Kingdom, Ireland" in the Infobox was sufficiently sourced and worded so as not to offend popularly-held thoughts on O'Toole's heritage or nationality as related in various media reports. One related issue regarding sources is that, instead of preferred Secondary, some editors have instead relied on a Tertiary source, an Encyclopedia Britannica article, as the reference for statements that O'Toole was Irish.
The lede's present wording which states he "was a notable stage and film actor' and which deletes all mentions of nationality, heritage, and/or citizenship in both the lede as well as in the Infobox seems to me to be a reasonable solution, as the various birthplace and heritage issues are then rather dispassionately dealt with in the first paragraph of the "Early life" section. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by other editors and unregistered IP users

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Comments by ÓCorcráin

I do not agree with Quis's edits as sources and primary sources by O'Toole himself confirmed that his nationality, heritage, ethnicity and self-identity was Irish. However I am not disputing he was an English citizen seeing as he also lived in England. I tend to not get involved in these issues until I noticed the editors escalating the situation. I then edited the article to a neutral version with no mention of identity etc. My position is that he was an Irish actor and citizen but also a British citizen. If there is no majority consensus for that than I would be satisfied having all references to nationality etc, omitted and retaining the current version. ÓCorcráin (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Input by Somchai Sun

I have only sporadically commented on this issue. There is a genuine problem here I feel, one that needs to be resolved, but as it currently stands we have had little to go on in achieving this. I don't feel strongly enough about this issue any more, and only wish to see a total stop to the edit warring. Until something can be agreed upon, I believe the lede and the info-box should remain free of anything related to nationality, ethnicity, birthplace & citizenship. If a full DRN is not realistic or feasible, then the only course of action would be a broader discussion on the article talk page. My views it that we need more sources and some input on the talk page of the article from a previously uninvolved editor, if they have the time that is. Night. - Somchai Sun (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter O'Toole discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I guess I should start. There is an ongoing and unending dispute over O'Toole's nationality, or apparent dual nationality. Suggested compromises ((i.e. "British and Irish", "Irish-British", "British actor of Irish descent", "British actor of Irish and Scottish descent who later acquired Irish citizenship", et al) are all rejected by intransigent, unregistered IP editors who insist on their preferred terminology ("Irish"), despite O'Toole's birth, education, military service, career, overwhelming majority of time on earth, and death all in the UK. Quis separabit? 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Shearonink's compromise is valid. Quis separabit? 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The lede's present wording which deletes all mentions of nationality etc, was my doing and compromise actually, which you already know, but carry on. ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It is your doing now, but not your original stance, if memory serves. I don't feel like doing diffs right now. Quis separabit? 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I know what my original stance was and I still retain it, I don't know why you are bringing it up as I have made no secret about it as anyone reading my below comments would see. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what compromise actually means. ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you should stop trying to rewrite history as your original stance was that the lede should indicate "Irish" only, with a mention in the infobox re dual citizenship (Ireland/UK). Stop slapping yourself on your own back for what you seem to think is your open-minded tolerance. Quis separabit? 22:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you should start being civil and stop making inflammatory remarks that are irrelevant and nonsensical to the discussion. Grow up please. Maith an fear. Tyrsóg (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::: "Maith an fear" -- looks like some diacritics are missing. Please fix. Quis separabit? 20:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand this phrase means "Good man!" or "Way to go!" so thanks for the compliment, anyway. Quis separabit? 20:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No diacritics in those words, I'm fluent in my native language so you can trust me on that. The phrase itself is mostly used as encouragement, as it was in this context, but yes, it can be used as a compliment also. Tyrsóg (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here, but am not opening this for discussion or "taking" it at this time. I just want to ask a procedural question: There are several participants who have not yet weighed in yet, but the three of you who have seem to be generally in agreement that the status quo at the article is a satisfactory solution. If the missing parties do not weigh in, is there anything more to do here? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Criticism of Jainism

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.
– 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

The issue is regarding representation of Dayananda views of Jainism in the article Criticism of Jainism. Bladesmulti is of the opinion that one sentence regarding Dayananda's views should be enough.[11] I am of the opinion that more context is required for it and hence some sort of analysis of the criticism should also be present.[12] Joshua_Jonathan compromised by adding a lot of background material in order to provide context. This, I believed, went a bit off topic.[13] [14]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have previously raised the issue at WT:INDIA. The discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_55#Dispute_at_the_page_Criticism_of_Jainism

How do you think we can help?

You can help us in building consensus on what is NPOV and relevant to the topic.

Summary of dispute by Bladesmulti

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

You should have called Jethwarp and Redtigerxyz as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Joshua_Jonathan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'm not sure how I can help here. Is there any working definition of what constitutes "criticism"? I did indeed object against the uncontextualized inclusion of a remark by Dayanand. But this may equally aplly to any "criticism": why should any specific criticism, or disoute, or rhetorics, be included? What's the critrium? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of disoute by Jethwarp

Summary of dispute by Redtigerxyz

Apart from the article's deletion decision, I have not been associated with this article. I am unaware of this dispute and as far as I remember was never part of it on the article talk or any other talk. I am a little clueless why I am listed as an involved party. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, a user above suggested that you and another be called here as an involved party. You don't have to participate, but your comments are welcome. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 16:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Jainism, you had made multiple points, the dispute is almost similar. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Jainism discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.

Ranveer Singh

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.

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

Should the not yet released film Kill Dil be included in the Filmography section of the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

round and round on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Advise how policies apply to whether or not we should include the not yet released film in the filmography section.

Summary of dispute by TheRedPenOfDoom

The issue is whether it is appropriate to include a not completed or released film in the Filmography section. There is no dispute that it is WP:Verifiable that the project is underway and has a promoted release date.

However, the title of the section is "Filmography" and not "Works-in-progress-ophy"

Wikipedia WP:CRYSTAL does not make prophetic claims about future events, such as the fact that a work in progress will make it to completion and release.

Wikipedia does not WP:UNDUE give unequal weight to aspects of the content - presenting the not yet completed or released item on equal footing as actual films gives it UNDUE weight.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERTising platform to promote an upcoming release by giving it high visibility in the Filmography list.

And while it is verifiable that the project is underway and has a release date [[Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. The project is already covered in the body of the article where the text can give appropriate context to the subjects involvement.

Claims that the item should be included because there is not " a policy which says Unfinished films are NOT films. " is Wikilawyering of the worst kind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Soham

The film is Kill Dill, a yet-to-be-released film which was included in the filmography section of an article (a GA). TRPod removed it quoting it as work-in-progress therefore violating Wikipedia's policies like WP:CRYSTAL and giving undue importance as well as promotion of it, here in WP. This would have perfectly fine had the incompleteness of the film rendered it as a junk but it does not because, film whether finished or not its a Film! I asked for a policy or WP:MOS which explicitly states that unfinished films are not films, which he [TRPod] failed to provide. The film has also went under principal photography therefore qualifies as a film work-in-progress. Thats my view after a RfC on my talk and am not involved in this dispute. Soham 13:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IndianBio

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Adding to Soham's and Bollyjeff's answers, TRPoD has time and again failed to explicitly show any consensus on this. He/She has been asked numerous times to raise this concern to the proper channels which Doniago did now below. TRPoD failed to do so, instead chose to edit war in almost every article he/she edits. If a film is shelved, cancelled etc, it is to be removed from the list I believe. There is precedence and it is the same across the encyclopedia like for films, we have similar scenarios for albums, music singles, concert tours etc, and I can show you that cancelled albums (once confirmed) are removed from discographies etc. However, when it is a confirmed release and production is being done, they are added as part of the discography of the artist. At the end of the day, he really wastes everyone's time. (I have made this point in the project page also) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Krimuk90

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Bollyjeff

TRPoD is wasting everyone's time with this trivial issue. There are multitudes of GA and FA level actor articles that include unreleased films in the filmography, so it is a defacto standard here on Wikipedia. He targets a small subset of articles to raise issues with for reasons known only to himself. It is not worth the time for most editors to constantly police filmographies for unreleased films to remove, because other editors will always add them back on a weekly or daily basis. It is more productive to just leave it, with a source that is is indeed under production. If the film does not eventually come out, it will be removed from the table and no real harm will have been done. If I wasn't wasting time on this right now, I could be improving other articles, which makes me feel good instead of angry, and is better for the readers. Please make him stop. BollyJeff | talk 13:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranveer Singh discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment: It's my understanding that the consensus established at locations such as WP:FILM and WP:Actors and Filmmakers is that unreleased films should not be included in filmography sections, but I concede that I can't find that encoded in policieis/guidelines/etc. To that end I've initiated a conversation on the subject here. Please don't respond to this (here) - my intention was merely to include a point of information, not start a discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I see no reason of not including upcoming films in filmography section. It is widely done and followed. But, something like "upcoming" or "not released" should be marked. Tito☸Dutta 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Logan's Run

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.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

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

I added information on comics to the Logan's Run page. It was summarily removed despite being perfectly accurate, apparently because I cited no sources, despite the fact that I actually had much of the material in my possession. I do not like the implication that I am a liar. I provided links to two sites, one a wikia containing photos of the material on the Logan'ds Run talk page, only to be told that said photographic evidence is not a "reliable source". The link to the other site, which backs up my information, was ignored. I find this person's attitude offensive and high handed and consider that he is deliberately ignoring information which backs up mine out of spite.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I just want a third party to rule on whether the information I have posted and the evidence I have provided to back it up is "reliable" or not, because I do not like the way this has been handled.

Summary of dispute by Donlago

MrScorch seems to have covered my bases in his analysis below. Tony's information was removed because he failed to provide a source, and rather than taking what I think would have been the most productive course of action and simply providing one, during an ensuing discussion on his Talk page he proceeded to essentially claim he was a subject matter expert, take the removal of his information personally, and then decided to take a few potshots at his perception of my conduct. My reading of this is that he feels since he's a self-proclaimed expert that he should be allowed to add information regardless of Wikipedia policy, and anyone who doesn't trust that he knows what he's talking about is attacking him.

In any event, if Tony's willing to provide a reliable source for his information we can move on. If not, then re-inserting the information without a source would at this point be a violation of WP:BURDEN. DonIago (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So, again: the other site I linked to, which is not a Wikia but contains all or most of the same information, is not a reliable source either? Then what is? The 1996-1997 edition of The Comic Book Price Guide from Titan Books also lists the Logan's Run Annual from Brown Watson and confirms it has art by David Lloyd, is that a reliable source? It also mention's the Logan's Run strip in Look-In, though it does not give dates or list who drew it (it was Arthur Ranson, but of course, I am not a reliable source). Is any of this conclusive enough? Tony ingram (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, I never offered an opinion on whether any non-wikia sites constituted reliable sources, but rather suggested that we wait for a non-involved party to offer an opinion. If you believe that I did express an opinion on such I would appreciate it if you could provide a WP:DIFF. Also, as this section is intended to be used strictly for my summarization of the dispute, it is inappropriate for you to be commenting in this section. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Logan's Run discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Photographic evidence that something exists is not a reliable source because the site policy doesn't say it is!!!? I give up. You lot aren't interested in being a comprehensive source of information, only in following your own arbitrary rules. I'll stick to my "unreliable" Wikias in future. Tony ingram (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on reliable sources, which is specifically why I tend not to offer opinions on them in most cases, but I imagine that with regards to photos it would depend on where they were originating. It is a regrettable reality that in this day and age photos can easily be manipulated. As MrScorch noted, when there are concerns as to whether or not a photo can be considered reliable it would probably be best to ask at RSN. DonIago (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, I know that tensions can run high in a dispute, especially when it is one on one. Let's to try to move forward and keep the discussion about content only and avoid personalizing the discussion and also avoid bold print, exclamations points etc..
Now..... the dispute is over content that was added by Tony Ingram and then deleted by Doniago because the text was not sourced. WP:BURDEN says:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.........Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material
So... Tony Ingram, can you please post here the content you would like to add to the article and any sources you have access to that support that content. Once that is done we can discuss both the content and the source(s). Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll try one more time. The content is as follows:

"British Comic Strips A hardcover Logan's Run Annual based on the TV series and featuring strip art by David Lloyd was published in Britain by publishers Brown Watson in late 1977, dated 1978. In addition, a Logan's Run comic strip also based on the TV series, drawn by Arthur Ranson, ran in the TV based British weekly comic Look-In from April-September 1978."

As far as sources go, since neither my own copies or the Wikia entry are acceptable, I would point to both the 1996-1997 edition of The Comic Book Price Guide by Duncan McAlpine, published by Titan Books in 1996, which confirms all the information above about the annual and also mentions the Look-In strip (but not who drew the Look-In strip) and this website http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/logancomic/index.htm which mentions both, has a cover image of the annual, and has scans of all the Look-In pages (though it does, erroneously as far as I know, state that Marvel Comics had something to do with the Look-In strip, which I would consider extremely unlikely). In addition, I was amused to notice yesterday that Wikipedia's own article on Look-In actually lists the Logan's Run strip. Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Tony ingram (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC) I've just checked Wikipedia's own article on Arthur Ranson, which also notes that he drew the Logan's Run strip for Look-In and cites another source. Tony ingram (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for posting this information. To answer your question: No WP is not a valid source for WP. However, if text in other WP articles cite reliable sources for similar or the same information you are proposing then they might be appropriate for your text as well.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So are the Price Guide and the other non WP sources mentioned valid or not? Tony ingram (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. It is a self-described "fan produced site" with no indication of editorial oversight or fact checking. Also on the home page it says: This page will be closed shortly. Also a lot of the content in your proposed text is not supported by the Snowcrest web site even if that website was considered reliable. Do you have any other sources? Maybe some from those other articles you mentioned?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comic Book Price Guide

What about The Comic Book Price Guide 1996 from Titan Books (which I've now mentioned a few times)? It was a published reference work, it corroborates the information. Something must count as a valid source, surely? Tony ingram (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there are valid sources :-) How can one access The Comic Book Price Guide 1996 from Titan Books to verify its contents? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Access it"? It's a book. You'd access it by getting hold of a copy, or finding someone who has, and reading two entries on page 731. Since, evidently, my word isn't good enough. I'm just feeling now that this whole situation is offensive (even when I cite an actual book it isn't good enough) and that this sites policies are deliberately obstructive. It seems to me the only way I could prove my infomation is correct would be by physically sending two or more of you copies of the material, and then you'd probably say you couldn't consider yourselves to be reliable sources. All I wanted to do was contribute some information about something I thought might be of interest to someone. Instead, I now seem to be almost being accused of being involved in some kind of global, internet wide conspiracy to fabricate the existence of comic strips from 1978 based on a TV show nobody remembers in order to bring down Wikipedia. What is the point? Tony ingram (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's said that the book you listed "isn't good enough", Keith just asked how it could be accessed. Personally if you can set up the book in proper citation format and confirm that the book in fact says everything you'd be adding to the article, I wouldn't have any issue with it, though I can't speak for my fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. If I can actually work out how to do that (since I haven't a clue), I will, when I finish work. No doubt I'll still get it wrong, though. Tony ingram (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,Doniago Tony, Sorry you are feeling put off by this process. It's not surprising as collaborating through typed messages based on a myriad of WP policies and guidelines is cumbersome and frustrating. You are not the first person to feel that way. I think though if you have the patience to bear with us, we can get this sorted out and get it done. And I thank you for your good intentions and contributions to WP.
WP is based on verifiable sources so I was asking about the source, how can it be checked. I didn't know if it was a pamphlet, an out of print book, an online subscription only report etc. I am just upholding the WP policies and processes. If you want to quit that is OK. But if you want to continue then this next step is to provide a URL link to information about the book online or tell us: Who is the author? date of publication? publishing house? page numbers where the relevant info can be found? So I can help you create a proper citation and add the text :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not feeling put off...I think you meant to address Tony there. :) DonIago (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, brain freeze..... I was addressing Tony.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The book is, I assume, out of print. It was published by Titan Books of London in 1996, the author is Duncan McAlpine, the information relevant to the article is on page 731 and the ISBN number issued by the British Library is ISBN 1-85286-675-6. Now logging off for the night as it's been an absurdly busy day but I shall check back in the morning to see if this is of use. Tony ingram (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK so a citation with < at the beginning and > at the end would look like this:
ref name="Price Guide">McAlpine, Duncan (1996). Comic Book Price Guide for Great Britain 1996-97. London: Titan Books of London. p. 731. ISBN 1-85286-675-6.</ref
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And it will look like this in the article:

  • "British Comic Strips A hardcover Logan's Run Annual based on the TV series and featuring strip art by David Lloyd was published in Britain by publishers Brown Watson in late 1977, dated 1978. In addition, a Logan's Run comic strip also based on the TV series, drawn by Arthur Ranson, ran in the TV based British weekly comic Look-In from April-September 1978. [4]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/75-001/archive/e-pdf/4602-eng.pdf "Saving for retirement: RRSPs and RPPs" by Ernest B. Akyeampong, Statistics Canada, Perspectives, Summer 1999]
  3. ^ "Ensuring the Ongoing Strength of Canada's Retirement Income System" Department of Finanace canada consultation document, March 24, 2010
  4. ^ McAlpine, Duncan (1996). Comic Book Price Guide for Great Britain 1996-97. London: Titan Books of London. p. 731. ISBN 1-85286-675-6.

Is this agreeable to everyone? If so, I 'd like to close this case as 'resolved'. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. The only issue I ever had was the lack of a reliable source. If that source backs up all of the information to be added to the article then problem solved. DonIago (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful!! Thank you everyone for your participation and patience!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Chikungunya

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

I am trying to add the treatment information for Chikungunya [15] happening in India tried using Indian Traditional Medicine by Government Hospitals and Central Council Research Institutions. I am using the source as the document [16] prepared and reviewed by Chief Doctors and Directors from Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Government of India. For many days, User Jmh649 said the above source is not reliable and removed the content continuously. Since another user WhatamIdoing also supported the content, User Jmh649 stopped removing the content. [17] But now User Jmh649 is trying to place the content with certain removal to a negligible and unrelated section called Society and culture in the article page instead of placing in the Treatment section and refusing consistently.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to explain User Jmh649 about the source details. But still User Jmh649 is not convinced.

How do you think we can help?

I have used 2 lines which are directly taken from the source. User Jmh649 stopped removing the content since another supporter user WhatamIdoing supported this. I believe people here will provide an unbiased and neutral view on this so that User Jmh649 will accept to put the content in Treatment section.

Summary of dispute by Jmh649

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The source this user is trying to use is not very good. This is more or less the consensus on the talk page. While one might be able to use it to say traditional medicine is used (which is a social and culture issue). The source does not support any benefit from said traditional medicine. We would need better sources for that and in fact the better sources say there is no specific treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Coordinators note

Hi, Thanks for coming to DRN to participate in a moderated discussion to resolve a content issue. At present we are experiencing a bit of a back log so it may take a few days before a moderator opens the case. We appreciate your patience. (Note to moderator: It may be helpful if you ping the participants once you've opened the case.) Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer coordinator)

Chikungunya discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Page 60 of [18] source provides the benefits of the used traditional medicines. Sathishmls (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Bosnian language

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

Formerly posted at ANI I was advised to seek help for dispute resolution instead. User:Kwamikagami, an established user, is removing reliably sourced content from the most scholarly of encyclopedias, Britannica, simply because it does not seem to serve his POV.[19] A clear-cut case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it if you ask me. Kwami belongs to what you might call the "pro-Serbo-Croatian" camp and is determined to present the term "Serbo-Croatian" as definite without all the controversy and ramifications that actually surround it. Linguist Ronelle Alexander writes in her Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary ("The first book to cover all three components of the post-Yugoslav linguistic environment"), Univ of Wisconsin Press (2006), p. xvii: Some claim that Serbo-Croatian still exists as a unified language and that to call the successor systems separate languages is a political fiction required by the existence of separate states, while others claim that there was never a unified language and that the naming of one was likewise a political fiction required by the existence of a single state. Most thinking falls somewhere between these two poles. Wikipedia's take should reflect the situation and that is exactly why I have been attempting to cite the overview Britannica offers. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing the matter at the talk page has led nowhere due to the totalitarian stance assumed by Kwamikagami. The main argument for objection has been unsatisfactory and in the style of Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

How do you think we can help?

By validating that reliable sources should predominate over personal opinions.

Summary of dispute by user:Praxis Icosahedron

Per above.

Summary of dispute by user:Kwamikagami

Not sure what the point of this is. It appears that Praxis is upset that "Bosnian" is not part of the name of the language, and indeed some sources, particularly political ones, address this by calling the standard (if not the language as a whole) "B/C/S" or "B/C/M/S" or other ad hoc compounds. But long discussion on the SC page has established that "Serbo-Croat(ian)" is the name generally used in English. Anyway, the note in question is from a non-linguistic source but makes linguistic claims; for example, it implies that SC is not a language (it is "forms of speech"). Linguistic claims should be based on linguistic sources, so the note is ill advised for that reason. Also, such details are covered at length in the SC article, which is why we link the name the note is attached to in the first place. Adding a note is not needed, IMO, though I wouldn't mind if it were based on RS's and reflected the consensus we've already established. User:Taivo has also reverted Praxis and seems to hold similar views, though he was not invited to this discussion.

As for Praxis's points above, he's confusing the language standards of the various nations with the language as a whole. We address this quite clearly on WP: We have separate articles for each of the four standards as well as a central article for the language. The leads of the articles on the standards all begin a similar way: "X is a standard form of the SC language". This is the consensus resulting from years of discussion, and I don't know how we could be more balanced. Basically, Praxis wants to make his language an exception. Problem is, there are Serbs and Croats and Montenegrins who want to make their languages the exception too, which is why we've had to work so hard to build consensus. — kwami (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by user:Ivan Štambuk

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Already explained in this edit. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian language discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. In DRN cases where I am a volunteer, I have had a lot of success by keeping the discussion structured and focused on article content. If anyone has a problem with this, we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy and thanks for taking this case. FYI the ANI case which was mentioned by the DRN case filer has been closed so there is no multi-venue issue. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
PS Some of the participants were not notified by the bot, so I've put notices on their talk pages. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I have completely lost ambition to try this case. I am sure Keithbob and Guy would do a great job but I am just convinced that Kwami and others have formed a front of bias too strong to be cracked by a single user initiative as mine. I feel that any attempts currently would only be in vain and a waste of our time. The opposing side, which is severely displaced towards one of the poles mentioned by Ronelle Alexander, is relentless. I'm out. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You really should have followed the instructions in big red letters on the edit page ("Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page.") but everyone has commented, so I am opening this for discussion.
Are you saying that this dispute is resolved in favor of the version supported by Kwamikagami and/or Ivan Štambuk and that there will be no further conflict if I close this as resolved? If not, are you willing to give dispute resolution a try, or should I close this as failed? What I don't want to see is for the conflict to erupt again on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just close it. There will be no subsequent conflict or edit war. I currently don't have the energy nor the time to debate this. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
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.

Sikhism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


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

I have misgivings about the WP:Competence of User:Jujhar.pannu. I have tried to engage him on this and other articles. Even administrator User: Diannaa has been invovled. I am trying to clean up Sikh and India related article and "Anglacise" them so they are easy for readers to absorbs information as many are difficult to follow. The reason why they are difficult to follow is "fundamentalist" factions amongst Sikhs try to add what they think it should read.

The key point is I need someone impartial to over oversee the wording and references I am incorporating. I also have questions over the WP:Reliable-ity of some of the references being used.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

-Engaging on talk page -Engaging on editors talk page -warning editor -getting admins involved

How do you think we can help?

by having somone impartial look at the references and wording. I think the editor is no longer WP:AGF , and has resorted to misuing warning templates on my talk page.

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Sikhism discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_84&oldid=1089818287"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy