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

• Talk:Unseen character#Rosaline.3F.21 No way.21 She doesn.27t belong in this article.21 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StBlark (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.92.80 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement about whether or not the character Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet should be included as an example of an unseen character on the article page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third opinion was requested at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion and subsequently provided by User:ONUnicorn.

How do you think we can help?

The third opinion offered has not been accepted by one of the editors involved in the original disagreement. An evaluation of the merits of including this example, including looking at the various sources for inclusion offered on the talk page and in the article would be appreciated.

The question is: Does Rosaline belong? Before that, a basic question needs to be considered: What is an “Unseen character”? The article defines it to include three significant criteria: I.) she must be a “continuing” character. 2.) she must be a character who will “frequently interact” with the others. 3.) She must be a character who will “influence” events.

Rosaline does not meet those three criteria, because (in the same 1-2-3 order): 1.) she is not a “continuing character”: The instant Juliet appears Romeo drops his interest in Rosaline. The script doesn’t even indicate whether or not she attends the party. This is a 5 act play and after the middle of act 2, she is never mentioned again. 2.) she does not “interact” with any character during the play. 3.) She does nothing to influence any events. She doesn’t DO anything during the play. Not one action can be ascribed to her.

WP requires that content be supported by sources: not one has yet been found that suggests that Rosaline meets those 3 criteria. The sources that are suggested support things not in dispute: Romeo’s excuse for going to the party, and the idea that Rosaline doesn’t appear.

If we ignore the defining criteria in the article, then what’s the point of the Wikipedia article? As a compromise, I suggest that the line about Rosaline be removed from the article, but then preserved on the Talk Page, and if anyone finds a source that supports her inclusion based on the definition that’s in the article then Rosaline can easily go back in.

(A point of order regarding the “third opinion”: His interest seems to be not in Rosaline alone but in new topics, for which there hasn’t been time to discuss. Also there’s some question about what he means as he says “a third opinion is just a third opinion.” He may want to add new ideas and opinions, or he may mean that his third opinion should be included in the context of dispute resolution. This needs to be discussed. He may be right about rewriting the article, but for our purposes here I think we need to agree to accept the definition in the article as it stands.) Thanks! StBlark (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rosaline from the play Romeo and Juliet has been included on the page as an example for a long time. There are two different reliable sources in the article for its inclusion - one that uses the term "unseen character" to describe her and one that explains how it is because of her that Romeo goes to the party where he first meets Juliet, making her the reason that they meet in the first place. The other editor has disputed the validity of including this example on the page. In the course of the talk page discussion I have quoted the play as a primary source and cited four additional reliable secondary sources for the claim that Romeo and Juliet meet because of Rosaline. That brings the total to seven sources to support inclusion. The other editor rejects these as being sufficient. At that point I requested a third opinion through WP:3. A third editor came and agreed with my position on inclusion. The other editor now does not accept that third opinion. So it stands as two editors with seven reliable sources versus one editor with no reliable sources. 99.192.92.80 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) (NB: I have a dynamic IP address and so there are several IP addresses on the talk page that are all me. They all begin with 99.192 and I have taken care to indicate next to the signatures that they are all, in fact, the same person.)

• Volunteer note - I have looked at the talk page, and agree that there has been extensive discussion, as is required before taking up a case here. I am not accepting or declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Confirming that all parties have been properly notified. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• While it's been years since I've volunteered here, I'd be happy to take this one on if the other participating editor makes a comment. If I can be pinged if that happens, that'd be great :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 06:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I will be opening this discussions shortly. I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you for both leaving statements. I have been spending some time reading the talk pages as well as a few other relevant pages. I don't feel I'm at the point that I can weigh in as of yet, and will do so in the morning, but in the interim, I am interested in getting my hands on the source text for thesetwo references. If either of you (or any wandering volunteers) could find those and post links to it, that'd be great, otherwise I'll take a look in the morning. For now, let's just all go have a nice cup of tea. Or a scotch. Whatever's your thing :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For the two references you want to review, the first one is here [1] and the second one is here [2]. Relevant also to the criteria for an unseen character that StBlark refers to above is this [3], which can be viewed here [4]. If you check, you will notice that the page cited does not support the description of unseen (or invisible) characters that the article states. In fact, two pages earlier that same source says "The invisible character may be best defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play"[5]. It looks as thought the description that StBlark is talking about here is inaccurate and not supported by the source the article claims to use for it. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Let's keep things focused solely on the content and not each other :) I'm just interested in the sources only, so thanks for providing them for me. I'll read them over in the morning and comment further. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if my comment seemed to be other than directed at the content. I was simply trying to alert you to the fact that there might be an issue here that the article reports criteria for an unseen (or invisible) character that sources offered in the article do not support. If the article does inaccurately portray this source it is certainly no fault of StBlark's, as he did not add the description in question to the article. But if that criteria is inaccurate it could affect the question of whether Rosaline is a worthy inclusion. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

I have read over a few sections of the article and the Rosaline article - I assume the reference you refer to regarding the third sentence in the article is this one? My assessment of that reference is that the description of an unseen/invisible character given in the reference may fit the particular character mentioned in the passage of text: "Here, it will be seen, the device of the invisible character is absolutely essential to the plot" - I interpret "the plot" as the plot of the story in the referenced material, not the description of unseeen characters as a whole. Page 133 does state "The invisible character may best be defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play.", and I've read over the talk page with the references provided and the source material linked both on the unseen character page and the Rosaline page, and it is my assessment based on the references provided that Rosaline does meet that criteria for classification as an "unseen/invisible character", especially as Page 133 of the aformentioned source states that they are never shown, but influence the action of the play. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, I did some checking on the Unseen character page history. When the page was first created in October 2002 it began with the description, "Television situation comedies sometimes include continuing characters who are never seen or heard by the audience, but only described by other characters."[6]. The phrase "continuing characters" has been in the article ever since. By 2006, when the page was a full blown list full of original research the description had evolved to its current form, saying "continuing characters—characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events"[7]. Nothing on the page at that time, including this description, had supporting citations. In subsequent years the "listiness" of the page was eliminated and the examples on it were all required to have proper citations, but the above quoted description still had no citation. Then on November 16, 2014 an editor made an adjustment to the page including adding the current citation for that sentence[8]. So it would seem that this description of what an unseen character is has a long history on the page, but was never more than unsupported original research. 99.192.64.251 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Apparently this is an open discussion, so I may join in here. Thank you, Steven Zhang, for taking the time and effort to consider this.

Any definition of an “unseen character” seems to indicate a character who is busy or active “behind the scenes” either influencing the plot or interacting — or doing SOMETHING crucial or something essential. Right? I think we can agree. Rosaline is unusual in that she does nothing at all during the whole entire course of the play. Nothing. Which is completely different from the definition of an “Unseen Character” in this article or any other definition you choose. If we want to consider whether or not Rosaline might fit the criteria of one who influences the plot or one who influences the action — we have to be able to name one single action that she takes or does to influence the plot or action. I ask that as an actual question: Can anyone put it into words? I would answer by saying she doesn’t do anything, she’s a kind of non-entity, and that seems to be the point according to more than one source — the point that Romeo isn’t really in love with her, he’s in love with being in love. As Henry David Gray reports in the source text that you requested: Romeo’s “love” for Rosaline is “self-generated” (it comes from Romeo himself)— and isn’t even inspired by Rosaline. And when Romeo meets Juliet — Juliet impresses as a contrast to Rosaline: Juliet is a flesh and blood character who actually does affect the action, and inspires “true love” from Romeo. StBlark (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the dispute must be resolved based on reliable sources rather than opinions of wikipedians, especially in case of disagreements. If some sources call Rosalinde "unseen character", then the article must say so: "some critics [1][2][3] call her unseen charatcer because..." This is not mathematics. The concepts may be blurred in humanities, and people may have different understanding. Teere is a basic definition, and there are shades some reputable people accept. -M.Altenmann >t 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with M.Altenmann. The fact that this article exists suggests that there is something notable or something special about an “Unseen character” that goes above or beyond what is simply a character who is “not seen”. So when when a source mentions that a character is “unseen”, for the purposes of this article it must be clear that the source means to apply the same definition that this article is using. That seems obvious, I hope we all agree, otherwise this would simply be an article about the many characters and townspeople who don’t happen to appear in the play. This is a problem with Rosaline: sources can be found that say that she is “unseen”, but those sources do not always mean what this article is trying to put forward. It also is a problem at the top of the article with the sources that are used to define the term. This article needs to have a very strong definition — and as M.Altenmann has just said — it needs to be clearly sourced.

There are plenty of “unseen characters” in this play that are mentioned or described, like Rosaline, and the daughters of Signor Martino, and Count Anselm, and Vitruvio. And there are some that are mentioned and also affect the plot (like the friar’s donkey). This article needs to lock down it’s own definition, or else it will be at the mercy of whatever Wikipedia editor holds the strongest opinions (whether they are right or not), and is the most insistant, and most enjoys the “back and forth” of dipute resolution pages like this one.

On another topic, I want to point out that earlier I asked if anyone was able to name one single action that Rosaline does during the play to influence the plot or action. And no one has been able to do that in this discussion so far. There are notable productions, (David Garrick, Theo Cibber, Franco Zeferelli’s movie) that have removed references to Rosaline from the play. I may not agree with that kind of editing, but to me it says something about how essential Rosaline is.

If you think of a playwright who might come to this page hoping to get an idea, this article is fairly thin in describing the idea, so the examples are important, and if we offer him a passive non-character like Rosaline … that will be misleading. StBlark (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a another character in the play, Romeo and Juliet, who actually has a responsibility for the death of both Romeo and Juliet. He’s mentioned, but he doesn’t appear. So, in other words — he’s an “unseen character” whose actions contribute to cause them both to die! This man is one of a small group who are described as Mantuans, searchers, and fearful. He’s never seen, and he’s capable of strong, bold action. During the course of the play, he and his cohorts do something so dramatic and awful, that when the audience learns of what he has done (Act V, scene ii) and the consequences, they sometimes gasp in horror — because what he does turns out to be literally tragic. If any “unseen character” is to be considered as one who significantly alters the plot or the action of the play, it should be him before Rosaline.

In contrast, Rosaline’s aspects (according to the play) are: She’s fair, she’s got an uncle, she’s not the prettiest, she has bright eyes, a high forehead, red lips, a nice foot, and a thigh that quivers. And before the play begins, she has been making Romeo sit around and mope, because she’s not that into him. Her actions during the course of the play are never mentioned. And she’s not well sourced in the way that M.Altenmann is talking about in the comment above mine. StBlark (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point I mainly have a question about the procedure here. The reason for coming to this noticeboard was that StBlark and I could not come to an agreement about whether Rosaline should be included, so I am not sure if it is helpful for the two of us to be the primary contributors to this discussion, especially since Steven Zhang has indicated he would be taking this case and he has already offered an opinion on it. I do have a number of things to say in reply to StBlark's comments, but I would rather wait for further information about whether it is appropriate to offer them at this time.

I also note that so far I, ONUnicorn (as the third opinion on the Unseen character talk page), Steven Zhang (above) and Altenmann (above) have all expressed support for inclusion and only StBlark has expressed an opposing view. I do understand that consensus is not merely a matter of majority opinion, but that opinion is split 4-1 right now seems of some significance when deciding what to do. 99.192.84.88 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

The moderator, Steven Zhang, invited discussion, and hasn’t made any final statement, I think that we can all carry on in good faith, respecting the process, as we are doing, and hope that if we participate in the discussion here what we say might be considered. Our moderator seemed to indicate that he was inclined to base his decision on a particular source, and I would like to point out that that source is a 20th Century English language essay, which is based on the author’s ideas regarding French plays from the 18th Century; to use that essay as an authority for 16th century plays seems not at all appropriate. The author of that essay, “Some Marginal Notes on Eighteenth Century French Comedy”, gives no indication that what he was saying had anything what-so-ever to do with Elizabethan plays, let alone any particular character. If he were to do a study on Elizabethan plays he would certainly come up with completely different ideas. He certainly does not claim that Rosaline is an “invisible character”, and no reliable source claims that she does anything to affect the plot or the story. Part of the point that M.Altenmann is making (above in the comments) is to urge editors to be careful to be accurate in using reliable sources. What we do in Wikipedia is important, every one uses it, and WP effects how directors direct plays and how people think about theatre. I think we have try to make Wikipedia the best it can be. StBlark (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I will be commenting further in the morning when I have access to a computer. Please refrain from discussing further till then.Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Briefly, I believe I have made my perspective clear in my comment above, but let me clarify. As Wikipedians, it's our role to report on what reliable sources say about a subject, and not necessarily to argue or debate over the content of said reliable sources. As mentioned above, reliable sources have defined Rosaline as an unseen character, and from the analysis further provided about the character and the source provided in the article as the definition of an unseen character, she does seem to fit the description. While dispute resolution is not a vote by any means, we do have two editors and two independent volunteers which see the same perspective on a matter. I'll ask another DRN volunteer to comment here as well to give their input, just to get a second pair of eyes on this to ensure the perspective is universal and I haven't missed anything. Please do wait until the other volunteer comments before discussing further, as I believe everyone involved has given a thorough explanation as to their point of view and how you have come to those conclusions. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steven for your clarification on the process here. I haven't been through DNR before so I am still learning how it works. 99.192.76.198 (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Volunteer Notice: I've marked this case as stale. There has been no activity for 5 days. User:Steven Zhang is this case underway or would you like to close it?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob, I'd like to keep it open. I've discussed this thread with another volunteer offline who's given me his opinion. As 99.192 notes, the article itself has a bit of history on the definition of an unseen character. Are we sure the definition we have of this is correct? Looking at the article, there are two references supporting the definition - I'm sure there's more than that out there. At one point the page apparantely had the definition of continuing character instead - I think before we decide whether or not Rosaline fits the definition, we must understand what the definition first is, and what references support that. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve, I agree with your point. The only two references in the article that give any kind of definition for “Unseen Character” are both strictily regarding literature and theatre in18th Century France. And having done an extensive search, I have found nothing beyond that (that defines the phrase as a concept). Except for one playwright who gets a bit of discussion that applies to her work in particular. So, as a concept or “trope” or “thing” it seems there is not much at all out there. The other route is just to use the dictionary definition for each word “unseen” and “character”, and then there are few if any criteria and the doors are open to any character that isn’t seen (who would be notable enough to be in Wikipedia). In fact, the only reference to Rosaline that refers to her as unseen is a passing reference (that the lyrics to a song reminds somebody of her) so that it must be assumed that the person quoted is using simply the dictionary definition. It seems to me that if this article gets too narrow and particular about insisting on what they were doing in France in the 18th Century — that could rule out so many. In other words, I think it might have to be simply about characters that are not seen — according to Wester’s dictionary. Then the characters that are offered as examples would need to be supported with a reference to the fact that they don’t appear. StBlark (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. I think if we went with a straight dictionary definition as the criteria for inclusion, you may end up with a massively long silly page that looks like this one. I would expect inclusion in the page would require them to be defined by a source as an "unseen character", possibly being notable enough to have an article in their own right, but I think it's worth discussion. There must be more than two references which describes the concept (for example, this could be a starting point. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven, I share your concern about the lack of strong sourcing for the definition of the concept of the "unseen character". I do, however, think that in the history of the theatre, in particular, the use of unseen characters has a history that is well enough documented and discussed that we should not need to resort to just the dictionary definitions of the two words separately. The use of unseen characters by playwrights like Eugene O'Neill ("Unseen Characters in the Dramaturgy of Eugene O’Neill" by Robert E. Byrd) and Tennessee Williams ("The Critical Role of Alan Grey, the Unseen Character in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire" by Peter A. Phillips) and more generally ("The Presence of Absence: Catalytic and Omnipresent Offstage Characters in Modern American Drama" By Safi Mahmoud Mahfouz) can be found through simple searches. I would hope that some clear definition that is based in scholarly study could be sourced for the page.

As for the specific case of the example of Rosaline, there does seem to be enough scholarly sources to support her inclusion as she clearly is discussed as an unseen character or consequence in the literature. In addition to all the sources I have already provided, here is one more that would seem to be as clear as anyone could ask for about this case:

"Among unseen characters figuring in the plot of the tragedies undoubtedly Rosaline in Romeo and Juliet is the most significant. It is seeing his beloved's name on the guest list for the Capulet ball that causes Romeo to go (masked, of course) to this party, hoping to catch a glimpse of Rosaline. Instead, he catches a glimpse of Juliet. Rosaline is thus the instrument of fate in bringing together the 'pair of star-crossed lovers' and therefore an important plot element." (From "The Reality of Shakspere's 'Supers'" by William Bryan Gates The Shakespeare Association Bulletin Vol. 20, No. 4 October, 1945, p.170)

So whatever work needs to be done about the details of the definition of an "unseen character" and the sourcing of that, surely Rosaline is one. 99.192.69.84 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

ADDENDUM: The Eugene O'Neill article I mentioned above has some words that could help with the general description of the "unseen character". It begins like this: "Scholars are just beginning to discern what happened a hundred years ago, when dramatic artists struggled to find new forms for a view of life that, for good or ill, was replacing nineteenth-century optimism. Playwrights of that time, restlessly experimenting, discovered new techniques and new uses for old techniques. In the latter category was the unseen character: the character, living or dead, who is never seen but who nonetheless causes onstage reactions and can even become a presence-in-absence. Strindberg, Ibsen, and especially Chekhov developed this device in the European theatre. In America, the first major writer to vigorously explore and use the unseen character was Eugene O’Neill." So this author both confirms that the "unseen character" is an old technique in theater and also provides some sort of general definition for it. 99.192.69.84 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

One problem with the sources quoted above, they seem to use the phrase “unseen character” with the simple general dictionary meaning — which is fine. Then they go on to find interesting particularities that apply to the way a certain source uses the general idea. That’s fine also. BUT — if you take each particularity that was only intended for a specific character and try to use it as criteria for the general definition of “Unseen Character”, you could encumber the definition with so many restricting ideas that it won’t apply to any one character at all. Plus you would be giving a twist to what the sources were originally saying, resulting with a meaning that the source didn’t intend.

For example, in the above quote about Rosaline the source says she is “the instrument of fate” and “an important plot element”. But would it be right or accurate to suggest that the author meant that an “unseen character” must be those two things? I don’t think so.

That’s also a problem with the above O’Neill quote which is describing a use of UC in a specfic era — not as a general definition meant to include Rosaline, for example.

Steven, this is also a problem with the search page you offered as a starting point — I’ve been going through the examples on that page.

I think that there are specific concepts or tropes for “unseen character”. One occurred in French comedies in the 18th Century, another occurs in TV comedies. But if we need a source that will define it so that the concept will also include “Waiting for Godot” and Shakespeare plays — no one has come up with it yet. And it may be that the idea is under-studied.

One solution might be to have the lead in the article be a simple dictionary definition of the phrase, and then follow the lead with sections, like: 18th Century France, Television, Shakespeare … etc. StBlark (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"a problem with the above O’Neill quote which is describing a use of UC in a specfic era — not as a general definition meant to include Rosaline, for example." This is not true. The passage describes the "unseen character" as an "old technique" that was around long before the playwrights of a hundred years ago found "new uses" for it. The article then goes on to give a thoroughly general definition. Nothing about that definition says that it only applies to a limited range of cases. You made the same error about the Green source, claiming that the definition provided there was limited to the context of French 18th century plays. But nothing in that text says that the definition of "unseen character" is limited to that country or period. The application of the term is limited to examples in French 18th century plays, but the definition is not.

You seem to keep trying to discount the significance all the sources that say the same thing about what an unseen character is and that Rosaline is one. But you also ignore the Gates source quoted at length that refers to Rosaline not only as an "unseen character" but as the most significant unseen character in all of the tragedies. The source is very clear. She not only is an unseen character, she is perhaps the best example of one that there is. 99.192.70.187 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Thanks 99.192, I appreciate that we’re both interested in this topic. To respond to your three points: the only thing that applies to Rosaline in your first example is that the source says that UC is an “old technique”. That can’t be considered a definition that is meant to include both Rosaline and Godot, for example. Second, there is indeed an indication that the Green reference is limited to the context of French 18th century plays — the title of the essay. You can’t assume that what Green meant might also apply all eras, countries andl forms if he doesn’t say so. Third, if Gates says Rosaline is an "unseen character" and a “most significant” one, it doesn’t suggest that he means that all “unseen characters” must be “most significant”. StBlark (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - I already wrote all this, so I'll post it as my last comment before joining you in that break)

To respond to your three points: "That can’t be considered a definition that is meant to include both Rosaline and Godot, for example." Well, it cannot be referring to Godot since Waiting For Godot (1953) was not yet written when that article was published (1945), but why not Shakespeare? The author is saying the technique us using unseen characters has been around a long long time. It seems odd to insist that a specific list of all the plays or eras and nationalities be given for us to know he means Shakespeare is included. Shakespeare is, after all the most famous playwright in the history of theater, so it seems odd to think his inclusion is not intended.

"Second, there is indeed an indication that the Green reference is limited to the context of French 18th century plays — the title of the essay." No. The title tells you that French 18th century plays are what the article is about, but not that all terms used are limited to a specific meaning for only that time and place. To assume that "unseen character" has meaning only in a context of a particular time and place is not supported unless you can find a text that says that it is an ever changing term. But to take another example I referenced, "The Presence of Absence: Catalytic and Omnipresent Offstage Characters in Modern American Drama" by Safi Mahmoud Mahfouz, The title seems to suggest that only Modern American plays are being discussed, yet the author (who uses the terms "unseen character" and "offstage character" interchangeably writes:

"Offstage characters do not represent a new dramatic technique. Characters who are denied a stage presence and are kept in the wings, but nonetheless have a strong backstage presence, have been used by influential playwrights since early theatrical performances. Offstage characters were used in early Greek drama as catalysts for action. Although king Laius in Sophoeles's Oedipus Rex and Jason's bride in Euripides's Medea remain offstage throughout the two plays, such characters contribute a lot to the development of the plot and serve as catalysts for action in the two plays respectively. In Renaissance drama Shakespeare incorporated Rosaline, the offstage figure, into Romeo and Juliet to serve as a foil to Juliet and to stress the predicament of the two lovers. However, it was Strindberg, Ibsen, and Chekhov who excelled in using absence as a theatrical device and weaving it into the fabric of their drama.

As with Green, a reference to the historical use is made. But in this case you get the list you want, one that includes Sophoeles, Shakespeare, Strindberg, Ibsen, and Chekhov. And there is no suggestion that the what counts as an unseen or offstage character is an ever shifting one that doesn't mean the same thing from country to country and century to century.

"it doesn’t suggest that he means that all “unseen characters” must be “most significant”." This doesn't make sense. You are misreading the source. He is not saying that Rosaline is the most significant character in the play. He is saying that of all the unseen characters in the tragedies, Rosaline is the most significant example of an unseen character. In other words, among all the unseen characters you could choose from, if you want to list examples of unseen characters, she is the best one to pick. 99.192.70.187 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

• Hi all. I think we come back to the point about us stating what references state, rather than our interpretation. The lede of the article or the top of the "examples" section" could have something along the lines of "X a claim/state/give Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as an unseen character, as she is never seen, but is only described." Or go with something similar. This can sometimes be a reasonable compromise. By doing this, we aren't making assumptions, but stating what sources say. We don't say "Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist", we say "Osama Bin Laden has been described by xyz sources as a terrorist". Make sense? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. The Gates source describes Rosaline as "the most significant" example of an unseen character in Shakespeare's tragedies, so the article can include a quotation of that description beside her entry. I also think a revised definition of the term can be carved out of some of the passages I have quoted here already. But thats a job for later. Thanks again for your help Steven.. 99.192.82.160 (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Hi Steven, just so I’m clear about your suggestion: Your suggestion is that if a source says that a certain character is “unseen”, that’s good enough to include the example in this article. That way editors don’t need to interpret the source — they simply rely on the fact that the word “unseen” is used by the source. If I understand you correctly: this would simplify things, and It would also remove from consideration all other criteria. So, therefore each and every “unseen character” does not need to be defined as: a “device” or a “trope” or as a character who “interacts off stage” or as a character who is “significant” or “impacts the plot” — or anythng else — but simply as a character who is “unseen”. I believe that represents what you’re saying?

Your suggestion would be such a simple definition that, it seems to me, it would be bascially the dictionary definition the word “unseen”. Please let me know if I’m correct about this, Steven.

As the article stands now there is no reliable source that is so simple and comprehensive, that it will support your suggestion. But if we add references to Webster’s Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary, and allow the dictionary to define the “unseen character”, and then move the reference to the French theatre down to another section or paragraph — that would be simple and comprehensive, and that might be a solution.

Steven, you were concerned about relying on the dictionary, but as it stands now the primary problem with this article is: defining an “unseen character” using reliable sources to do that. To answer the question: What is this article about? It seems to me it is essential to solve that problem first, which is what your suggestion seems to be addressing. Then the question of individual examples would follow and would be simpler. StBlark (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The scholarly sources that deal specifically with the device of the unseen character that have already been quoted in this discussion give us something that is both better than a generic dictionary definition of "unseen" and better than what the article previously had. From Green we get "The invisible character may best be defined as a character who, although never shown to the audience, nevertheless influences the action of the play", from Byrd we get "the unseen character: the character, living or dead, who is never seen but who nonetheless causes onstage reactions and can even become a presence-in-absence", and from Mahfouz we get "characters who are denied a stage presence and are kept in the wings, but nonetheless have a strong backstage presence". Gates only gives us "characters who are described but who never appear in the action" as a definition, but his entire article is about the various ways that such characters can be used and variety of significant functions they can have. He says many "have a distinct *personality of their own, and some serve definite dramatic functions." The ones he discusses at length (including Rosaline) are ones he describes as "those that aid in the characterization of an active participant; those that help to make a situation more vivid; and those that figure in the antecedent action or the plot." That seems like a pretty good start on specific descriptions from scholarly sources. 99.192.48.97 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Our moderator has made a suggestion that should be considered. I asked him a question to clarify his suggestion, and I’d like to give him a chance to respond, not to ignore other suggestions, but in order to understand what he’s suggesting before proceeding with new discussions that his idea may impact. StBlark (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should try and change it to something we can all live with, but I disagree a straight dictionary definition is the way to go here, though we do need something in the article title to describe the concept of an unseen character. If we have sources that describe the concept (which we do, as per 99.192), I would suggest we use those as the basis for the definition in the article title. For inclusions on the list however, we go with citing reliable sources that describe the inclusions as unseen/invisible characters - because it's the reliable sources role to interpret the part characters play in the respective works and determine if they fit the definition, and not ours. I'll work on a proposed article lede today and post here for commentary, but I'm feeling this is pretty clear cut now that I read over the discussion and think it over. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, regarding examples, it is worth noting some of the page history. For a long time the page was treated as a list where everyone would add their favourite examples. Almost none of it was properly sourced either. Then in 2008 there was a proposal to delete the page - See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen character (3rd nomination). The result was "Keep but keep the list to the absolute minimum (or preferably incorporate it into the text) and expand the discussion of the use of unseen characters as a plot device and so on." The examples listed were massively reduced and generally agreed upon and since then the examples have been kept limited and all of the examples were checked for reliable sources. So at this time I don't think there is much of a concern about what does and does not count as an example for the page. The ones there have sources and additional examples are not needed. But the description of "unseen character" in the lead still would be better if revised. 99.192.93.167 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

With all due respect for IP 99.192, I strongly dispute claims that he makes immediately above: 1.) The claim that all of the examples in the article as it stands now are supported by reliable sources is not true, as can be demonstrated by the missing footnotes. 2.) The suggestion that the examples that now exist in the article are all good is not true — there are examples that are very bad and clearly disputable. For example the radio characters (?) used in the example of the “Archers” have spoken lines and are voiced by actors (one example is famously voiced by Judi Dench) How can a radio character be considered “unseen” when it has lines, it speaks and an actor gives it voice? This is an example of a kind of sloppy foolishness caused by various editors in the past that has plagued this article. 3.) The idea that there is general support for the examples is also false — a look at the edit history of this article shows endless and constant disputes, often because certain editors are fond of interpreting the life out of sources and examples. 4.) It is premature for us now to be insisting on particular examples until the lead is re-written. It’s getting the cart before the horse. The best way to avoid disputes is to try to deal with the lead and the definition, as is currently being considered. StBlark (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) re: sourcing. StBlark is correct. I skimmed too quickly and missed that Godot, the scorers from I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, and Ozzie from The Clitheroe Kid are not sourced entries. I have no objection to their removal should we not be able to adequately source them. The other eleven examples, however, already pass the sourcing test. (2) The objection to the The Archers entry is wrong. The entry and supporting source says that there are "a number" of unseen (unheard) characters. That one of them ceased to be an unseen character when Judi Dench voiced her does not mean there are not still others who remain silent. (3) I claimed that the examples that were put in the article when it was massively rewroked were generally agreed to then. This is true. That people keep trying to add Vera Peterson, Sheridan Bucket, and Mrs. Wolfowitz to the page is not really significant given that they are not unseen characters. But most importantly we do agree that then next order of business is the description of the term. I will wait to see what Steven comes up with as a proposal for one before commenting further on that. 99.192.93.167 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

To correct what IP 99.129 has said immediately above: I’m not mistaken regarding the source for the obscure “Archers” radio program example: That source mentions characters who it says are in fact voiced by actors, including Judi Dench who has been the voice of her character since 1989, and the milkman who has a thick accent, and the barman who is voiced by Scott Arthur. The source isn’t clear whether or not some characters speak seldomly or rarely or never. It’s a bad example that invites dispute and requires interpretation. It also refers to characters who appear “on stage” and are seen by other characters. And the idea that a radio character is “unseen” -- they're on radio so ALL characters are "unseen" -- has been disputed by other editors. It is also not true (as stated above) that all of the other sources are fine and all of the examples are supported by reliable sources. I’ll give you one example: The Source for “Will and Grace” has a problem. There are more. Rather than making a series of inaccurate ill-considered proclamations out of a desire to argue for the fun of it — editors should be more careful to be accurate. This article is a mess and needs work. And (again) it is premature to be proclaiming about the examples in this way — not until a proper lead section exists. StBlark (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Administrative Note: The current moderator, User:Steven Zhang is taking time away from WP due to a family emergency. Would the participants like to wait for him to return and then continue the case? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. 99.192.67.158 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

Yes, that's absolutely fine, I wish him well. StBlark (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang, Welcome back! Maybe you could ping the participants and let them know you are back and ready to finish the discussion. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) PS just a reminder this case is set to auto archive June 28th. I believe that means it will auto close after that date if 24 hrs go by with no activity on this case. Just a heads up. You can extend the date if you like.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been checking in daily here to see if anything has been added. Consider me pinged 99.192.76.193 (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

OK, thanks all. @StBlark: - let me know when you're back and we will resume. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Steven Zhang:, welcome back, I'm here, thanks. StBlark (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven, thank you for taking the time to deal with this, I'd be glad to accept your suggestion on how to proceed. I think that your oversight would be important. The idea that “the definition of an unseen character is unclear and up for discussion” (as you phrase it, Steven) is key, though it should be noted that it isn’t a new thread, it was formally stated as the primary question right up at the top of this section in the “Summary of dispute by StBlark”. Anyway, thanks again, I look forward to any and all efforts and considerations. StBlark (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it seems reasonable to take this back to the talk page to discuss the issue of the description of "unseen character" for the lead. I will try to put together a suggestion for something that might work based on the sources cited above and maybe also using other ones I have found. It seems to me that there are more than a few scholarly essays about unseen characters that begin with a general description. I'll post what I come up with on Talk: Unseen character. See you all over there! 99.192.71.10 (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

OK sounds good. I'll close the thread here then. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:26, 1 July 2015 (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.

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

• Peter Schiff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view. As such, context specific heresay on a biographical page and opinions stated by critics should not be presented as having any bearing on the events of person's life. Impartiality is crucial to biography. Peter Schiff is a political pundit who says many controversial things. This does not give every opinionated editor free reign to target a tiny portion of the vast amount of information out there to frame him in a negative light. There's an entire copied and pasted paragraph doing nothing but mentioning that "so-and-so" said "such-and-such" about what they think of what Mr. Schiff thinks, which is irredeemably a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and while it may be true that some person says something or has a response to an unpopular opinion, that hardly qualifies as verifiable. This wiki page is rife with misleading information specifically targeted to defame this individual and is not only an inaccurate reflection of Schiff's views, but extremely lopsided in the shear amount of text and linked dedicated to defamation as opposed to real information. Little is mentioned about many other significant events during Peter's life.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Revisions, Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Asserting that Wikipedia articles are to be written from a "Neutral point of view" and that heresay and copied and pasted opinion statements made by other political pundits do not qualify as biographical in nature. Peter Schiff's wiki, like all biographical wiki's should provide a broad overview of the life events, general viewpoints, and ideas of a noted figure. The volume of defamatory information versus the volume of information that was clearly left out makes clear that it is not impartial.

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.

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

• Talk:Souliotes#Manipulation of inline reference (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rolandi+ (talk · contribs)
• Zoupan (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article said that souliotes were (we use "were" as they don't "exist" anymore, they have been assimilated as references says) "a warlike community".I have provided references ( see the talk page please--- Laurie Kain Hart, etc ) that makes it clear (to my opinion) that they "were (a branch of ) albanian chams".I think that we can't use just " a warlike community": for example we say "Dorians were one of the four major Greek ethnē "(see Wikipedia) and not "Dorians were a warlike community" only because their original concept doesn't exist anymore. I think that the most important problem is User Zoupan,who didn't provide any link at the talk page,he just deleted the part of the article which said that Souliotes spoke albanian.He also deleted the references about the fact that " Souliotes were a branch of Albanian chams and spoke Albanian." User Alexikoua provided a reference (G. Kretsi ) that stated that Orthodox albanians in Greece were called "Arbanits".The problem is that this reference means that Muslim albanians in Greece are called "turks".I think that this makes this reference unreliable. I have also provided a reference (P. Xhufi) who states that all Albanians in Thesprotia and Nothern Greece are called "Chams".(see the Souliotes talk page+Chams' article please. ) Also user Zoupan made edits referring to Souliotes as "Ottoman Greeks" without consensus (We were using the Talk Page).I had made some edits there without using the talk page (I am new here) ;after that I was informed about the talk page I am using only the talk page now,while Zoupan continue making edits without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandi+ (talk • contribs) 07:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to find a solution by using the article's talk page and user talk Alexikoua.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the most important thing is to prevent Zoupan from deleting my references.Secondly,you can suggest us (or decide) which is the correct alternative.

Rolandi+ (talk · contribs) continously made biased edits. The user refuses to discuss in a civil manner or contribute to the project. I stand by this evaluation. Rolandi+ made the following bold edit, that Souliotes were Cham Albanians and that their native language was Albanian, without any discussion. According to historiography and contemporary sources, the Souliotes were a Greek mountainous tribe (identified as Greeks) that fought against the Ottomans (this is their notability). There is an assumption that the tribe was of Albanian origin. After looking through the article, I saw major WP:SYNTH. I edited the article according to what the references actually said. I have not deleted anything from the article (Compare Rolandi+'s revision with Zoupan's revision) and I am well aware of Wikipedia policies; there is a section regarding the issue, at Identity, ethnicity and language, and I discussed the matter on the talk page. The dispute overview given by Rolandi+ is very confusing; he wants to describe the Souliotes as Cham Albanians (that instead of Greek, this is their notability), but this is simply not factual.--Zoupan 21:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a thread about the user at ANI here--Zoupan 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. The editors have also included an unregistered editor who has not been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (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.

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

• Berkeley Heights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BerkeleyHeights (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have made some contributions to the Berkeley Heights Township page and cited every source. One reader claimed the content violated Wiki's rules by being either a Blog or a News Report. My contributions were clearly not either. I simply used news reports as my citations for verification. The reader removed my contributions in a wholesale way, completely wiping all contributions out. I responded on the Talk page in order to describe my basis for including such news sources. I revised them pursuant to the reader's comments and then reinserted them following the reader's feedback to make them appear to him as less of a blog and more concise, however, he deleted all of my contributions even then also without engaging me on any further Talk. I reinserted them again, but he keeps removing them. I am basically being hacked. The simple truth is that the reader simply apparently likes the Town Of Berkeley Heights and does not wish to see any information which could be perceived as unflattering. Wikipedia is not a place for a disturbed reader to remove others' contributions merely because the reader does not like them. That is what is happening here. My contributions make this particular Wikipedia page much more balanced and useful.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I revised my contributions in order to appear less like a News article (which was his complaint when he removed them) in an effort to satisfy his complaint. I then reposted my revised contribution. Since the content was not flattering information about Berkeley Heights, he again edited and removed it. I have tried to engage him in Talk, but the reader does not respond, but instead keeps removing my contributions.

How do you think we can help?

So long as my contributions are judged by Wikipedia to be factually correct, verifiable and cited, those contributions should be able to remain intact notwithstanding a reader's wish to read only what they want to see on Wikipedia.

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.

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

• Talk:Occupation of The Heart (Ageh Ye Rooz) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KDS4444 (talk · contribs)
• Ultimate1220 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An article was recently created about an Iranian album which came out in 1977. As a new pages patroller, I reviewed the article and came to the conclusion that it was not notable, turning it into a redirect to the artist per WP:NALBUMS and providing an edit summary explaining this. The editor who created the article, Ultimate1220, reverted this edit without an edit summary. I then created a talk page discussion explaining the reasoning for my edit and asking subsequent editors to address my concerns before reverting my edit, and made the page a redirect once again. This edit was undone by the same editor without making any edit on the talk page. I then began a discussion on the user's personal talk page explaining that it felt like we were getting into an edit war, asking for a response to my concerns over this and stating that I was going to again create the redirect. This was again ignored and the redirect was reverted. I made another comment on the article talk page explaining that it looked like the other editor was unwilling to discuss with me the notability of the album, and indicating that it appeared mediation would be our next step. And so here we are.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Most of my steps are explained in the dispute overview. I have made entries on the article talk page and on the other user's talk page asking for him/ her to engage me over the notability of the album and on its status as a redirect vs. a stand-alone article, but have so far been ignored.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping that having another editor look at the content of the article and explaining the futility of an edit war will convince the other editor to either accept the conversion of the article into a redirect or cause him/ her to finally produce evidence of the album's notability (but which evidence I am fairly certain does not exist— even the article on the artist himself doesn't have any references, but I am not here to discuss that).

• Volunteer note - This appears to be a dispute about whether the album (as opposed to the artist) is notable. The community can resolve the issue by Articles for Deletion, by leaving the article standing while the AFD discussion runs, with one possible outcome of the discussion being redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it, and thank you: will open up a case at AfD with a redirect as a proposed outcome. Let me know if there is anything else I should do here in the mean time (if I can close the dispute I would be glad to do that, though my guess is that this requires an uninvolved third party). KDS4444^Talk 20:40, 2 July 2015 (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.

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

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

Users involved

• Hoestermann (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Roscelese seems to be abusing the terms of use by censoring factual information on Fr. John Harvey, founder of Courage International, with which she does not agree. From her user profile it is apparent that she is an LGBT supporter, and seems to be trying to erase news of the good work of Courage, as it is a Catholic apostolate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried to contact her, but no response.

How do you think we can help?

Please compare the original work and what Roscelese has done. See for yourself.

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.

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

• Talk:Institutional racism#Disputed edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BeeCeePhoto (talk · contribs)
• DivaNtrainin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Added two paragraphs to the Canada section to describe the institutional racism that took place over the last 135 years. It shed negative light on the clerics accused by the natives of atrocities. A cut and paste edit of the residential schools replaced the paragraphs with a neutral toned whitewash with factual oddities and a link to the main article about the schools. Words left out changed the meaning. The editor accused of me of intent to edit war because I corrected the entry, added sources and put back my paragraphs beneath hers, filling out the story. She wants me to make edits to the main RS story, which is off topic for the article. I found other articles where she did this before (sixties scoop). Until I added to the Canada section, she had no interest in the article I added to, showing a bias against revealing the past actions of the church in canada. Her experience with this reveals that there is an agenda at work- namely keeping all discussion of the treatment of the natives to one article which is then stalemated whenever negative treatment is added. This has been discussed on the talk page but using weasel words to confusticate the issues she refuses to allow any entry about the disparate treatment of the indian children over the last 135yrs to be entered into the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked another editor to look over the dispute, tried to talk to the other editor, made adjustment to the material, added additional sources, reviewed the statements and verified the citations.

How do you think we can help?

I see the end game as merely tying up time spent fruitlessly going back and forth until they get their way, but across many articles. I don't see this as an isolated article dispute, this editor has been at this under other and the same name, the article I am working on is 120k+ and this portion is only 4k in dispute, but is all that the editor in question is interested in warring over. They briefly mentioned the introduction, but that deals only with defining what the topic is.

I removed BeeCeePhoto's submissions because I felt no amount of editing could fix the submission. If BeeCeePhoto's submission had stood, there would be two sections on the same topic on the same Wikipedia page, one right after another. In addition, there was capitalization of words without any logic, the name of the truth and reconcilliation commission was wrong, and it was full of weasel words. I couldn't even figure out how to focus the submission, because it seemed like it rambled on about all aboriginal issues and that was after I asked him to clarify his point. Aboriginal issues in Canada are an important and complex issue, which is why we have can't expect a few paragraphs to cover everything that needs to be said. I viewed this as a summary of the aboriginal residential school system, yet BeeCeePhoto views this as a soapbox and place for his opinion to be heard. As I said in talk pages, I value input from other editors and if other editors could agree on the wording, then that would resolve it.

However, I would agree that my section could be improved by a single sentence on the involvement of the church, and a single sentence on the controversy over the effectiveness of the various reconciliation efforts, and some more references. However, the personal attacks are not appropriate.DivaNtrainin (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion at the article talk page. It does appear that the issue is ready for dispute resolution. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is not the place to report sockpuppetry, but to discuss article content. "This editor has been at this under other and the same name" appears to be a claim of sockpuppetry. Please report sock-puppetry to the sock-puppet noticeboard. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer mediator accepts case: OK folks, I'll open this case. Given that it's been sitting here a couple days, I hope that the heated discussion is cooling down and we have content issues capable of being resolved. In short, wbehavioral issues need to go to other boards, such as ANI or SPI and are beyond the scope of what can be handled here. So, that said, with a focus on CONTENT ONLY and no personal attacks on one another, can each of you put forth a suggestion for how you think this issue can be resolved on this article? I see that DivaNtrainin has already suggested adding one or two sourced sentences. Would this be a starting point, BeeCeePhoto ? Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The original paragraphs tied together the narrative of how the events were related to Institutional Racism. This was replaced with a screed on the Residential schools, whitewashing the issue. Every attempt to make that relate back to the topic has been reverted to this milquetoast application of the residential school story and entreaties to edit that article. Read the original and see that the schools were a part of the system, the gov't played a role in continuing them for so long, and it has already been framed and cited, with plenty of independent sources. DivaNTrainin still continues to put up her version and excludes mine, while the former lacks independent sources and is plagarized from other wiki's. She makes no attempt to debunk any of the sentences, she merely removes them and insists that her version is the only version. She's made no offer to add sentences or sources that would make her passage about the main topic, it that were the case she would not be making her latest statement that the Cultural Genocide referred to in the UN draft Resolution and the Reconciliation Commission documents as a 'blog post' after removing the reference. All that I have seen so far from reviewing her contributions, are removal after removal of whole sections of articles related to canadian issues for spurious reasons, it was made more obvious when the citation note that she removed in this article because it had been there since 2010 required a minimal effort to find proper citations, which she made no attempt to do, simply removing the sentences. This is not helpful to better the article, and says a lot about the editor. Mis-capitalized words, claiming that the title mis-names the commission, all point out that if this editor really wanted to improve the article, then she should have corrected those issues, but those issues were all attended to in subsequent edits, which she still removed, now claiming that there were two sections of the same information. The two sections exist because she added one and I let it stand, after correcting the factual errors that mis-categorized the topic. If she wanted to add those two sentences nothing prevented her from doing so to her section, but it still is the cut and paste screed as before.Robco311 (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The articles involved should have a category of their own, as an aid to identifying the editors involved in making the changes. Institutional racism, Racism in North America, the Indian residential school, Indigenous racism, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Canada), Sixties Scoop, AmINext, Aboriginal food security in Canada, List of reportedly haunted locations in Canada, History of freedom of religion in Canada... I don't have the tools to sort it all out, the pattern was there before I did any research. Very little attempts to edit, just removals from canada issues of negative sentences. Robco311 (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, now will the other disputant please weigh in? @DivaNtrainin: If we are to resolve this case, I need to hear from both sides. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of adding a few references to the disputed section of Institutional Racism, I am pretty content with the section as it stands. Although if BeeCeePhoto wants to add a reference to cultural genocide, I would not dispute that. Regarding my editing, I have removed sentences from articles, which is not disallowed, or even necessarily wrong. If the content is not relevant to the Wikipedia topic or is a repeat of information already in the article, then the content needs to be modified. The fact that I use similar wording between the disputed Wikipedia article and other similar well-moderated articles should be viewed as a positive, since it ensures consistency between articles.

However, what BeeCeePhoto's comments above, I don't even know where to start. A lot of BeeCeePhoto's problems seem to not be with my editing, but with me personally. For example, the listing of Wikipedia articles in the second paragraph are a listing of Wikipedia articles that I have edited, most of which have never received any feedback or reversal. Overall, BeeCeePhoto's expectation for Wikipedia is to that it should be a soapbox for his opinion. Aboriginal issues in Canada are very challenging and contentious. Even knowledgeable people have different opinions on this. I do have a different opinion that BeeCeePhoto, and this seems to be the bigger problem. Overall, he wants this article to be biased and not reflective of a neutral point of view. I have suggested that he read Wikipedia's style guide, which is something that he does not seem to want to do.Overall, he hasn't been cooperative or even respectful towards other editors.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer mediator's comments: Personality conflicts are beyond the scope of DR/N, so I can't help either party there, and suggest that if there is a behavior issue, WP:ANI is the forum for behavioral issues. That said, the article overall has uneven sourcing and certainly needs some work. The immediate issue appears to be sourcing of specific sections and the tone of those sections. Looking at them, I will say that wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS guidelines are quite clear: most wikis and blogs are not going to be considered reliable sources. So any material has to be sourced to something better. On this topic, there is plenty of good history out there, and probably even some peer-reviewed scholarly material. Another way to handle the issue is to "teach the controversy" and present each (or all) sides' views in a calm, encyclopedic manner. Is there some middle ground here that you both can find with these suggestions? Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As is apparent from her statements, DivaNTrainin is seeking to couch her initiation of an edit war into a personality issue. It is not. It is the removal wholesale of 2 paragraphs without attempting consensus and replacing it with something that distracts from the main topic. While I will readily admit that my sources can be bettered, I really don't have the access that an academic would or the experience that other editors have shown me in getting better sources. I have found that no sentence placed in a wiki is valid without a source, and sometimes the source can be questioned. However, for a small portion of a point to be removed because the source is weak, such as the 'Cultural Genocide' quoted from the page on that topic, which was sourced from a NY times article - that pains me to no end. I really did not need the cultural genocide reference for my paragraphs, but used it to gauge consensus as it directly referenced the attempt to whitewash the canada part of the article, particulary with using the sentence that stated' there was much controversy'. There is, at this time, no evidence of any such 'controversy', and by adding this 'doubt' and deflecting from the main topic, is where I feel the plagarized, and make no doubt, copying from another wiki seems to be against the norm (see: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ), material that she introduced in the midst of a far longer article that deflected to the topic of the residential schools and removed the actions charted by the truth and reconciliation commission as originally posted shows a bias against any recognition of the recommendations made by that commission which refuted; in official documents placed before the canadian parliament, that there was any controversy about the gov't involvement and the churches compliance with the extinction of the first nations people as carried out via this Institutional racism that took place over the course of 135yrs in canada. She refers to the two paragraphs as 'Soapbox', and insists that I refer to the manual of style, yet make no willingness to return the original material and edit from that starting point, as other editors have done in other similar sections (see: Australia) where there is further need to edit down and cull the material to make the main point stand out amongst the references cluttering the section.

It has to be plainly said, I was tough on this editor. I defend all my work and sometimes realize that other editors will follow and remove passages that I felt relevant to a particular subject, sometime removing everything that I had spent days researching. Yet I did not protest nor revert those edits (see: Hendrick van der Heul , Anita Florence Hemmings ) even when I clearly disagreed with the whitewash to fit the manual of style and deleting from the articles the references to black history that made those people 'relevant'. So why here, the reason is this. The article was not about the residential schools, it was about the Institutional racism that made the system last as long as it did, and steps taken to rectify the long lasting effects of such discrimination. It is not about 'discrimination', residential schools in the U.S., Canada or Australia, or racism. All of those topics have articles which go into details that I cannot hope to better or even add my two cents of knowledge to. The topic I was contributing new material to is one this other editor has chosen to HIJAAK by vandalizing and thats why I am actively contesting her edits.

If she will revert the edits and work to merge the two versions of the Canada section, working to clean up the language on the schools, I will work to clean up the language on the Institutional racism... Robco311 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added my submission below, but I would like to add a few comments. The first is that this section is about the aboriginal residential school experience, and not about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission ran from 2008 to 2015. What we are talking about is a summary of what happened through the 19th and 20th centuries, not what happened over the past seven years. Second off, some of BeeCeePhoto's references are still really bad, such as vice.com or www.tworowtimes.com. Also, BeeCeePhoto's last sentence in the third paragraph is wrong. Natives can vote, apply to be a lawyer, and leave the reserves. However, these rights were given to natives over a period of time, such as natives given the right to vote in the 1960's. Regarding how much detail to put into what occurred at residential school systems, I am going to suggest that we only use wording or examples from the Truth and Reconciliation's final report, which is [online]. Regarding some of the examples that BeeCeePhoto's cite, they are either poorly sourced, contentious, not challenged for validity or representative of a single school. As I said before, this should be a high-level summary of a complex situation that happened over many, many decades.

• Volunteer mediator's comments: OK, way too much attribution of motive here and way too much commenting on contributors, not content. My suggestion is that you two sandbox proposed language here and work on a draft. I don't care who goes first. @DivaNtrainin: and @BeeCeePhoto: please present proposed edits; I will comment neutrally on style and tone per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that DivaNTrainin has finally edited the piece she placed in the article about Institutional Racism (re:adding citations to the WP:SUMMARY of the RS article). She complained that there were bad cites, particularly about the Catholic church and the reports of torturing the indian children. In my research I found many references to St. Annes school and selected one that basically told the whole story. It was a terrible time and one that I'm sure seems a bit of biased reporting, however, thats how it was. Her claims that the story of the Canadian Indian residential schools is what the section is about falls flat as she was the one introducing the whole story of the schools to the article. I was primarily concerned with content to show how it became policy, supported by politicians and carried out by the police and other designated as 'protectors'. As with the story of NAZI Germany, it turns on the fact that regular germans accepted the propaganda and ignored facts that told them the Jews were being systematically purged. There were many in Canada, in the U.S, in Australia and in all the other sections of the whole article that accepted the gov't version of affairs and went along with the laws put forth that made such treatment 'legal', as in there were no laws against treating minorities in a disparate manner. As the courts have found, it was 'Institutional racism' and spelled out remedies for redress. I actually find her summary to be a great wikipedia article, but it really is not the focus of the article it was placed in. JMHO Robco311 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer mediator: Please comment only on content, not contributors. Also be careful to not use editorial language in these articles; they are encyclopedic, not polemic. So, it looks to me like the changes below are shown buy this diff Am I correct? If so, would this be acceptable to both parties to be inserted into the proper place at the article? Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin: Per the diff above, are you OK with the sources added by BeeCeePhoto ? Just a reminder, let's focus only on a) if you are both OK with the content below and b) if it is to go into the article or not. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, no I am not happy with the sources added by BeeCeePhoto. There are too many fringe news sources, like www.rabble.ca, www.tworowstimes.com, and www.vice.com. The thing is there are better sources available, which is what I provided in my draft. These are sources like the report from the Truth and Reconciliation Report, CBC.com, government sources, and an article that was curated by a university. However, I think the bigger issue is that BeeCeePhoto wants this to be a list of every incident that occurred within Canada regarding aboriginal issues. Even if the statement is well-sourced, we still need to ask does this statement fit into the purpose of the paragraph, section, or Wikipedia article. As I said before, this should be a high-level summary and we should include mention of other Wikipdia articles. In that way, the reader feels that if they want more information, then they can easily find it.DivaNtrainin (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree and still wish to revert your edits. You are fixated on removing sources and citations that show the churches involvement in torture at the albreni and st. annes schools and thats not the subject of the article. It's Institutional racism. It's now moot as the piece on canada was edited. Robco311 (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer mediator comment: OK, here's what I'm seeing: We have a conflict between @BeeCeePhoto:, who clearly has great passion for the topic; and @DivaNtrainin:, who has deep concern about sourcing and reliability. Not sure you guys are going to get to the point where you see eye to eye, but it looks to me like you both care about the issues and your actual positions on the issues aren't all that far apart; it looks to me like more a matter of tone and sourcing than a fundamental ideological difference. I am going to strongly suggest that comments about contributors motives or beliefs need to stop, now. It isn't helpful to call people "fixated" or accuse them of bad faith. If you are both willing to assume good faith of the other, we can continue:

But first off, if the article has now been edited to the point the issue is moot, is there anything for the two of you to mediate, or are we done?

If you are still working on adding the material below, here's my take (and opinion). Remember that I am merely a mediator and you can both decide you don't agree with me, but I think it's time for me to comment a bit. As far as sources go (and I say this having worked on a bunch of featured articles), vice.com looks pretty tabloid-y to me, so I would recommend you not use it. I do agree that where they support material you both agree is to be included, "mainstream" sources like the CBC and university-based sources are a better fit under WP:RS. That said, I am aware that there is more polarization amongst First Nations people on some issues in Canada right now than what we see with Native activists in the USA and the Canadian mainstream press has been dismissive enough that it is worth considering Native-based viewpoints, even if their sources are sub-optimal. I took a pretty close look at tworowtimes, and it looks like a reasonably solid, if somewhat radical in tone, news source for first nations people, albeit published via WordPress and with a pretty strong POV. I'd say it could be used not as "proof that torture happened" but rather as a source for a statement of position such as "the people of first nations XY and Z hold that the actions of entity ABC constituted torture" (do you see the difference here?) As for, Rabble.ca, it sort of depends on what you want to use it for - it looks like a typical left of center news site — so not precisely "fringe" but a bit close to the white line on the left side of the road. If balanced with a more "mainstream" account, it might be useful for some things, but I have to say that it isn't the most reliable source to cite that the UN considers something "genocide" - you should cite the language of the actual UN report for that - or a neutral, third-party analysis of the UN report. So, is any of this helpful and can we move forward? Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Content and sourcing. I find references that are sometimes duplicated on different pages. The mediator looked at some of the sources complained about which is just about what I expect to see, and I can work from that critique. Wholesale removal for off topic digressions touting a neutral point of view is something that I wanted a non-participatory editor to look at. Does the cut and paste indian school section have a place? Did the Aboriginal Indian IRC section deserve to be returned? Neither was answered and I'm of the view that it still needs to be resolved in the context of the broader article. As it stand now, the residential school section by @DivaNtrainin: needs to come down, and some of the sources and statements of the Aboriginal IRC section molded in a final passage. I don't think that's my call, so can the mediator help to resolve? Robco311 (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@BeeCeePhoto: Just for clarification, you say the residential school system needs to come down and some of the statements of the Aboriginal IRC section molded in a final passage. I am really struggling to see what problems you have with my passage. I mean, if we get rid of the residential school system statements, both are proposed material is gone. Could you please provide clarification as to what you want added or removed from my passage. Regarding the fact that I "cut and paste" from other sources, I think we can agree that this is not a reason to edit my work. It's not only allowed, but in this context, probably adds merit to the passage that I wrote.DivaNtrainin (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, lets edit the WP:SUMMARY. There has long been controversy about the conditions experienced by students in the residential schools. Remove this, the investigation by the IRC Commission removed any controversy about the intent of the schools to actually educate and better prepare the children removed. The report of Dr.P.H.Bryce published in 1922 also stated that the goals of the schools verged on 'manslaughter' for the harm they did.

In his first official report, issued to the government in the fall of 1909, Dr. Bryce stated, “I believe the conditions are being deliberately created in our Indian boarding schools to spread infectious diseases. The death rate often exceeds fifty percent. This is a national crime.” (November 12, 1909)

While day schools for First Nations, Metis and Inuit children always far outnumbered residential schools, Remove this, Attendance at the schools by First Nations children was compulsory in the 20th century up until 1970. It was not compulsory for Metis or Inuit children, so why did you make this claim?

It is estimated that approximately 6000 children died while attending a residential school. Remove this, the actual figure has been moved up to 50,000. The bodies were moved when the schools closed, and the official count by the commission is at 6,000. The First Nations cannot provide the proof, but the Canadian Holocaust that you have removed the cites to are sticking with the higher figure, and it is the basis of their claims.

Nowhere did I begin to catalogue the extent of the 10,000 cases documented before the IRC, what would be the point of that. I used a sample to describe the condition prevalent in the schools, and you complain about the source of the cite, while there are dozens of other references for the same sample that was used. As a matter of fact, none of this is original research, it's just a entry that used what was already noted as a good example of what Institutional racism is.

The rest of the section is a revamped version of what was already in the section removed. If the sources are unreliable, spend time finding better ones. That would be of more help. See the following cites:

'The so-called “Indian problem” was the mere fact that Indians existed. They were seen as an obstacle to the spread of “civilization” – that is to say, the spread of European, and later Canadian, economic, social, and political interests. Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932, summed up the Government’s position when he said, in 1920, “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. […] Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian Question and no Indian Department.”

The assumptions, and their complementary policies, were convenient. Policy writers (such as Davin) believed that the Indian must soon vanish, for the Government had Industrial Age plans they could not advantageously resolve with Aboriginal cultures. The economic communism of Indians – that is to say, the Indians’ ignorance (from a European perspective) of individual property rights – was met with hostility by settlers eager for ownership of the land. Colonization required the conversion of Indians into individualistic economic agents who would submit themselves to British, and later, Canadian institutions and laws. (See: Metis Scrip)

The federal government and the churches – Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian – therefore applied to their “Indian Problem” the instrument of education, also known as the policy of aggressive civilization. The initial education model was the industrial school, which focused on the labour skills of an agriculture-based household economy.

From the beginning, the schools exhibited systemic problems. Per capita Government grants to Indian residential schools – an arrangement which prevailed from 1892 to 1957 and which represented only a fraction of the expenditures dedicated to non- Aboriginal education – were inadequate to the needs of the children. Broad occurrences of disease, hunger, and overcrowding were noted by Government officials as early as 1897. In 1907 Indian Affairs’ chief medical officer, P.H. Bryce, reported a death toll among the schools’ children ranging from 15-24% – and rising to 42% in Aboriginal homes, where sick children were sometimes sent to die. In some individual institutions, for example Old Sun’s school on the Blackfoot reserve, Bryce found death rates which were even higher.

F.H. Paget, an Indian Affairs accountant, reported that the school buildings themselves were often in disrepair, having been constructed and maintained (as Davin himself had recommended) in the cheapest fashion possible. Indian Affairs Superintendent Duncan Campbell Scott told Arthur Meighen in 1918 that the buildings were “undoubtedly chargeable with a very high death rate among the pupils.” But nothing was done, for reasons Scott himself had made clear eight years earlier, in a letter to British Columbia Indian Agent General-Major D. MacKay:

It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habituating so closely in the residential schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian Problem.'

Institutional racism at its finest.

If I missed pointing it out, whitewashing the churches involvement in placing Sadists, Perverts and Murderers in charge of the church schools wasn't my original complaint about your section, it was that you consistently denied the attempt to do so. Robco311 (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly biased and unknowledgable about this subject. You are just bringing in facts that are untrue, such as the figure of 50,000 dead children. You seem to want this to be your personal soapbox and blog. It's not. You make statements that are not supported and you don't respect the fact that these statements are not on any other wikipedia page on this topic. You edits are in violation of the Wikipedia NPOV and reliable facts. The fact that make large scale change to the Institutional racism page despite the fact that we have this current dispute resolution, tells me you don't care about this process or about resolution. You have no interest in this page or making Wikipedia better. You just want to stand on your bigotted, racist(against natives) soapbox and yell at the world.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@DivaNtrainin:, Whoa nelly. Back up and recognize that I am not a bigot, and the statement you rail against is the opinion of the First Nations, stated so on their blog/website and here in the book by Kevin Arnett^[1], and is not a part of the current article. I also did not include any reference to his book, his excommunication from the church (he is a de-frocked RC priest) and his fight to make mainstream journalists take note of the suppression of the Canadian Holocaust. It is part of my rebuttal to you for asking me to cite where I would make changes. As for racist, I will admit I'm not a fan of pedos, whether two wheeled or any other kind, but don't see where I've made racist statements to that charge. I would think that Kudo's would be in order for a neutral, well rounded piece on Institutional racism in Canada, instead of the accusations you're making. I have no soapbox, nor is it my intention to get on one in any park or public venue anywhere. Thank you very much for your approbation. You also asked me (In Institutional racism:Talk) to edit on the topic of Institutional racism, which I did, evidently not to your liking. But you should read it, because of you I could now debate at Oxford on the topic, and then some, regarding racialization (a word that I was entirely unaware of before seeing Malcolm X use it in his debates there) and the vigorous denying of racial intolerance by some when the topic of the IRC is broached. I don't think you want to edit, you want to edit war, so I have to retreat. that's it, you've won. You're right, I'm wrong. Is that Ok with you. I'm assuming you are doing good. TaTa. Robco311 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so we now seem to have two issues? 1) Do we add/keep any of the material below (update me if this is currently in the article in some form) and then 2) What does it looks like? I've got to say that right now the article itself looks pretty disorganized and has some duplicative material (the "History" heading under "Canada" should be a level 3, not a level 2 heading, by the way) Whatever goes into that article needs to be a bit tighter than what's there, the residential school material is a bit (not tons, but some) WP:UNDUE in terms of raw length. I'd tighten up the writing here, remove duplicative material, improve the sources, and incorporate some of what's below, that can be reliably sourced. And yes, it is OK to move material from other articles, though best practice to put a notice of that sort on the talk page (see how I did that for Russell and Sigurd Varian, which incorporated material from John Osborne Varian - see the article talk pages for the tags to use) - and also to copyedit. 07:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is that @BeeCeePhoto: may have a point that the residential schools section is a bit long and unwieldy, but @DivaNtrainin: has a point that the source material needs to be solid and reliable. I'd say the section is relevant, but tighten it up! Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If the two of you can hack and slash at the section below until you are both OK with it going into the article, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: the edit war was over @DivaNtrainin:'s removal of the 'Aboriginal Indian Residential School' section and replaced it with the unsourced, copied WP:SUMMARY of the Canadian Indian residential school system which was updated belatedly with sources during this dispute resolution. The continued presence of her section is not in line with the topic of the article. I was warned not to remove it from the article because it constituted an edit war. It is duplicated material and needs to be removed. The new edit is more on topic and she is welcome to add better sources or more reliable citations. That is what good editors do, not remove words and sentences that they may not be in agreement with. Robco311 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@BeeCeePhoto:: So, at present, TODAY, based on the article as it sits, do you want to see one section removed totally? If so, precisely which one? Or, if it is duplicative, can the material be merged and incorporated into another section? Can the material below be added, and if so, where and what would be removed to allow this to replace it? And please, focus only on content, not the contributor. Let's focus on solutions, people. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The section - Canadian Indian Residential school. Robco311 (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@DivaNtrainin: : Based on the article itself as it sits TODAY, do you want to add/remove/alter the section below to insert into the article, and if so, where? Are there othrthings in the article that neeed to be removed or changed to allow this material in. Let's focus on solutions, people. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As the article stands today, it is terribly written, and it is not just @BeeCeePhoto:'s writing. Even before he started editing, there were large scale problems with the content and tone in the article. The edits that BeeCeePhoto has made have only made the article worse. At this point, I don't want continue the edit war with a clearly racist (against natives) person. I have added some tags at the start of the page regarding NPOV and regarding making a need for a person with expertise in discrimination or sociology to review the page. The tag regarding needing a person with expertise had been on the page for quite some time before it was recently removed. BeeCeePhoto has not edited the entire page, and even the part that he hasn't edited needs some review. As I said before, other people need to weigh in, and putting the tags on the front of page may result in editors reviewing the entire page at a later point in time.

At this time, the only thing that I insist is that the tags (or some similar tags) stay at the top of this page. Regarding the rest of the articles, I am not interested in trying to work with a clearly racist editor. He has just made this entire page unreadable, and there are just too many problems to tackle at this point in time.DivaNtrainin (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we can't resolve the dispute here, then. My suggestion is that if overall tone and content is an issue, then either an RfC or possibly taking the article to an article improvement drive where new eyes can look at it may be the next step. @BeeCeePhoto:: Unless you hae an idea to break the impasse, I think we need to close this as unresolved and recommend a different dispute resolution venue if there are ongoing problems. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not think it would be resolved, the original 2 paragraphs gave an overview with respect to the topic 'Institutional racism', and did not need to be removed. The entire article is about how that topic played out around the world, in different forms, from the Japanese Internment to Apartheid in S.A. That one editor finds the facts unreadable, even when sourced and referenced, points to a bias. I can't overcome that, and that's not any fault in the content of the article. The churches role in placing bad people in administrative posts in the schools was 3-4 sentences in a 4k piece on Canada in a 115k article and this was the only thing that was 'bad content'? I wasted too much time on responding to accusations from someone who can't even be bothered to read the damn thing through. I consider this portion concluded. Thanks to @Montanabw: for moderating the dispute. Robco311 (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish that there would have been a more satisfactory solution, but it seems we do need to close, as there appears to be no point at which the parties can come together. There is simply too much personalization and focus on personalities going on and the proposals for a solution don't seem to be acceptable. Some other venue may prove a better place to resolve these issues. I think that the reliable sources noticeboard or WP:3O may be worth considering. An RfC may or may not help, but that's also an option. Closing as N failed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please draft your proposed changes here. I will comment where there is a mediatable issue. Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping to User:Montanabw-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

{[yo|Keithbob}}, I'm here, commented above. Montanabw^(talk) 06:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In the 19th and 20th century, the Canadian federal government's Indian Affairs Department officially encouraged the growth of the Indian residential school system as an agent in a wider policy of assimilating Native Canadians into European-Canadian society, a policy now defined under UN charter resolution as Cultural genocide^[2]. . This policy was institutionalized with the support of various Christian churches, who ran many of the schools; and enforced with the help of the RCMP. Over the course of the system's existence, approximately 30% of native children, roughly some 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally, with the last school closing in 1996.

In 2015 the Truth and reconciliation Commission of Canada reported that for over a century the country's leaders poured resources into annihilating the First Nations as a separate people. It was revealed that 19th century politicians had concocted the scheme and it was carried out by the church, where aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families and shipped off to residential schools where they were turned over to the Christian Clerics running those schools^[3][4]. Once there, they were stripped of their native heritage by having their long hair cut, their names were replaced by numbers, and beatings administered if they spoke their native languages. One school had an Electric chair, which led to reports of torture during the hearings held by the Truth and Reconciliation commission^[5]. The stated goal of the scheme was reported^[6], "to kill the Indian in the Child"^[7].

While day schools for First Nations, Metis and Inuit children always far outnumbered residential schools, a new consensus emerged in the early 21st century that the latter schools did significant harm to Aboriginal children who attended them by removing them from their families, depriving them of their ancestral languages, undergoing forced sterilization for some students, and by exposing many of them to physical leading to sexual abuse by staff members, and other students. Roughly 150,000 native children were interned, of which 6,000 died of neglect and malnutrition^[8], and left many others subject to physical and sexual abuse^[9]. The Commission's final report said Canada should fund native education, support the survival of indigenous languages and reform the criminal justice system which had been accused in the hearings of being racist in it's treatment of the First Nations population^[10]. The report chided the current government for holding back more than $1 billion in spending towards these programs and cutting funds set aside to achieve the goals that were to reconcile the aboriginal population for the systematic mistreatment. Institutionally, a part of this had included not being allowed to vote, apply to the Bar or leave the Reserves|reservations without the permission of an Indian agent^[11].

The Commission heard from the victims of the cultural genocide^[12], but not the perpetrators. A mid-90's report of the police investigation into systematic abuse was sealed^[13], citing confidentiality of the alleged perpetrators^[14][15]. Starting in the 1990s, the government started a number of initiatives to address the effects of the Indian residential school.

In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. In the Fall of 2003, the Alternative Dispute Resolution process was launched, which was a process outside of court providing compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused or were in situations of wrongful confinement^[16]. On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology on behalf of the sitting Cabinet and in front of an audience of Aboriginal delegates^[17]. Robco311 (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In the 19th and 20th century, the Canadian federal government's Indian Affairs Department officially encouraged the growth of the Indian residential school system as an agent in a wider policy of assimilating Native Canadians into European-Canadian society.^[18] This policy was enforced with the support of various Christian churches, who ran many of the schools.^[19] Over the course of the system's existence, approximately 30% of native children, roughly some 150,000, were placed in residential schools nationally, with the last school closing in 1996. There has long been controversy about the conditions experienced by students in the residential schools. While day schools for First Nations, Metis and Inuit children always far outnumbered residential schools, a new consensus emerged in the early 21st century that the latter schools did significant harm to Aboriginal children who attended them by removing them from their families, depriving them of their ancestral languages, undergoing forced sterilization for some students, and by exposing many of them to physical leading to sexual abuse by staff members, and other students, and dis-enfranchising them forcibly. It is estimated that approximately 6000 children died while attending a residential school. Overall, this policy has been described has been described as cultural genocide. ^[20]

Starting in the 1990s, the government started a number of initiatives to address the effects of the Indian residential school. In March 1998, the government made a Statement of Reconciliation and established the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. ^[21] In the Fall of 2003, the Alternative Dispute Resolution process was launched, which was a process outside of court providing compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused or were in situations of wrongful confinement. (ref)^[22] On June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a formal apology on behalf of the sitting Cabinet and in front of an audience of Aboriginal delegates.^[23] A Truth and Reconciliation Commission ran from 2008 through to 2015 in order to document past wrongdoing in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. ^[24] Upon completion of the commission, a document in June 2015 was released which identified 94 “Calls to Action” in the areas of child welfare, justice, education, health, language, and culture. (ref)^[25]DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2015 (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.

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

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

Users involved

• EnochBethany (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Reverting on a Talk Page. I put an irrelevant link where this is not the issue, because this question does not address any particular dispute, but the rule reverting talk pages. And I don't know where else to ask this question.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Futile discussion. I find my talk page question being reverted/deleted. If I repost it, again it is reverted/deleted. I want to know the rule on this. I came across this Wiki rule: "If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not "edit wars" . . . . Does that mean that we can go on forever; my posting the same talk page question and another erasing it.

How do you think we can help?

Simply let me read the complete rules on this so I will know how to handle repetitive deletion/reverting on a Talk Page.

Could you include a diff related to this? Since you appear never to have made a contribution to that talk page. The closest was commentary you added to Talk:Quark–gluon plasma in December 2014. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think EnochBethany was referring to the deletion of a WP:BLP-violating assertion that was followed by a question as to its veracity at Talk:Pope Benedict XVI. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

We should probably add @Elizium23:, the user who carried out the removal. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The following rules are relevant to the abovementioned dispute. WP:BLP says in the lede, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Also, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." WP:3RR holds me exempt from observing 3RR: "[exemption #7] Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, as I specifically said, this is not about any specific dispute on any talk page, but about what the rules are. Please confine the discussion to my question. And please do not confuse the rules on editing an article with rules on talk page discussions. I find my comments on a talk page, a question on the subject being reverted/deleted. If I repost it, again it is reverted/deleted. I want to know the rule on this. I came across this Wiki rule: "If you want to add a "lame edit war" to this page, keep the following in mind: It must have been an actual edit war. Discussions on talk pages, even over trivially lame details, are not 'edit wars' . . . ." Does that mean that we can go on forever; my posting the same talk page question and another erasing it. Is the foregoing a valid rule, or are there other rules on this subject? (EnochBethany (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

Well, speaking hypothetically, WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis added), noting that "Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So, talk page posts that include unsourced assertions (even if they are asking about the veracity of those assertions) can be removed, as they are on "any Wikipedia page." WP:BLP goes on to warn that "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Furthermore, WP:3RR forbids "more than three reverts on a single page" within 24 hours of each other, noting that "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space." It

So, reverting repeatedly would likely get one blocked in general, but especially so if the edit happened to violate WP:BLP.

Also, the page you are citing is Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, which explicitly states that it is a humor page. It is in no way a rule, and it is a really bad idea to try to present it as one. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the rule you quote on BLP is preceded by "which is usually done with an inline citation," it is obvious that in concerns assertions in an article, not the talk page, since inline-citations are not essentials to talk pages. And yes the citation does come from a humor page, but it is giving a non-humor rule about adding to the humor article -- or so it seems to me. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

What part of "any Wikipedia page" do you not understand? And how could rules which only serve as qualifications for entries only on that specific humor page possibly trump a policy that explicitly states "any Wikipedia page" that is in place to legally protect the site? Seriously, that line of argument is so ridiculous that if a brand new account made that argument I would have to report it for trolling.

If you see a page labelled "humor," do not pretend that an out of context portion of something that applies only to that page trumps a policy that states it applies to any page on the site. It's really that simple. And if you're going to do so, actually state which page you're citing -- because hiding it looks dishonest.

If you really believe you are in the right, go right ahead and restore the edit. If you think you're going to be blocked for doing so, consider if it's because you shouldn't have added that edit to begin with. It's that simple. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you might want to shift the discussion to what I may do on a specific talk page (ad hominem) instead of confining the discussion to what the rules are on talk pages. But lets try to limit the discussion to the issue, not persons. You seem to think that the rule on BLP articles applies to talk pages, even when the talk page presents a report of what is being said & asks if it is valid material to add to the article, without making any assertion at all about the person's biography itself. But I think your rule interpretation is wrong. It says:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.

It is obvious that the rule is directed at articles, rather than talk pages. Persons do not have NPOV on talk pages, verifiability, nor are accused of original research for stating what they have found themselves. Inline citations have nothing to do with talk pages. At any rate, if there are specific rules which distinguish edit warring on articles vs violations of freedom of speech on talk pages, I would like to see those rules, so as not to run afoul of them. Now if someone posts a question on a talk page & an edit war ensues, who is the warrior? The first one who goes over 3? Obviously the first poster will not the first one to exceed 3, but the reverter will be the first one over 3. But instead of edit warring on the talk page (which seems impossible anyway per Wikipedia rule), I would just like to read the rules on the subject and understand what they are. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

Oh, sorry I misunderstood your questions. The actual rule you need is WP:IDHT. Hope this helps. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't "seem to think" that BLP applies to talk pages, I know. What part of "any Wikipedia page" do you not understand? Misquoting the letter of the law does not trump the spirit of the law -- any unsourced material about living persons is to be removed immediately. I have commented on behavior, not on persons. Taking an out of context portion of a humor page to argue against a foundational policy that explicitly applies to any page on Wikipedia was a bad idea, regardless of who did it. Hiding which page the out-of-context quote was taken from to try and cover that up was at best incompetent, if not dishonest, regardless of who did it.

Stating that attribution is usually (which does not mean always) done with an inline citation does not mean that it can only be done with an inline citation. It also does not mean that there are no citations on talk pages. On talk pages, it is extremely common for editors to say "according to (source title, source author, source publisher and page numbers), (source author) claims that..."

It is WP:Wikilawyering (and bad wikilawyering) to claim that "usually done with an inline citation" means that the previous phrase "any Wikipedia page" does not actually mean what it says.

People are regularly told all the time that their original research is not welcome on a talk page. Citations are often found on talk pages, and inline citations are not the only way to do citations. "Freedom of speech" is a governmental concept, and Wikipedia is a private entity.

WP:3RR and precedent at WP:3rrNB are clear that any person to revert more than three times is an edit warrior. The person to first add something can be an edit warrior quite easily if they are reverted by multiple people.

WP:3RR says that it applies to any page. The idea that it does not apply to talk pages is from a completely incompetent attempt to misappropriate an out-of-context portion of a humor page. There is absolutely no reason to believe that WP:3rr does not apply to a talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see no profit in continuing this exchange. I wish you all well & peace. I Intend to check back to see if anyone has any further rules to refer to. (EnochBethany (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC))

• Volunteer comment - The original poster says that they have a question about what the rules in Wikipedia area, and doesn't know anywhere else to ask the question. Either WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse/Questions are good places to ask questions about Wikipedia, including about what the rules, policies, and guidelines are. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2015 (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.

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

• Metropolitan State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Blanksamurai (talk · contribs)
• Redseeker69 (talk · contribs)
• Randomeditor1000 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am requesting dispute resolution to avoid an edit war on the Metropolitan_State_University wikipedia page. Users Redseeker69 and Randomeditor1000 are in disagreement about the content on the page and how to deal with specific sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I am requesting a 3rd Party Opinion so that I can stay neutral in the process.

How do you think we can help?

Verify or look through the edit log and look at the changes and statements made so that they follow the Colleges WikiProject format.

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.

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

• Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Human3015 (talk · contribs)
• CosmicEmperor (talk · contribs)
• Faizan (talk · contribs)
• 39.47.50.14 (talk · contribs)
• 115.186.146.225 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

At issue is the last paragraph of the lead, which covers the 2014 elections. Two versions can be seen in this diff. The older version is preferred by Faizan and the IPs involved. The newer (condensed) version, I believe, is at the right level of detail appropriate for a lead. This has been termed "bowdlerizing" by Faizan. He and the IPs seem to want to retain a direct quote of the Chief Minister, and they would also prefer to eliminate the acknowledgement by the EU that the elections were "free and fair" and that the election turnout was highest in 25 years. Human3015 and CosmicEmperor at the other end do not want any mention of the separatists and Pakistan at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At my request for intervention, the page has been semi-protected because the IPs were edit-warring. A talk page discussion ensued at Talk:Kashmir conflict#Election 2014, which has failed to reach agreement.

How do you think we can help?

Please tell us what is appropriate for the lead.

• IPs want that remarks of EU regarding Kashmir election should be removed and only personal opinion of Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed should be included. Statement of Mufti giving credit to Pakistan for elections is his personal statement and not official statement of Government of Jammu and Kashmir. The coalition government in J & K also includes Bharatiya Janata Party which condemned this statement. Means the government which he lead itself don't support his statement, and neither his statement is supported by any other independent group or organization.
• While statement by EU giving credit to India for free and fair elections in Jammu and Kashmir is really mentionable thing. Read sources in article lead, it is not any employee of EU who congratulated India, it is European Parliament who congratulated India, that parliament consists of official representatives of 27 European nations. Involved IPs want to delete statement by parliament of 27 nations and want to keep random politically motivated statement by local leader which is not even supported by his own government.
• Controversial leaders from India and Pakistan gives controversial statements regarding Kashmir issue on daily basis, but European Parliament don't congratulate anyone on daily basis.

The statements are added to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 but can't be added to Kashmir conflict. Wikipedia is supposed to be concise. We are not going to mention every minute detail about a topic. A statement by a present Chief Minister, made at a time, when she was not elected as a chief minister of JK, is too trivial to be added to that page.A statement by present Chief Minister when she was not elected as chief minister (Clearing doubts about He/She).

@Kautilya3 Please do not associate me with those IPs. I support your bowdlerized version, as it correctly summarizes the text that is to be put in the lead. I don't want the full direct quotes. I don't want the removal of EU's report about the elections terming them free and fair? How did you get to this conclusion? In short, I even made a minor change after your edit, and I support this version. Faizan (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3's description of dispute is in itself disputed please Refer talk page discussion on the basis of which in my humble opinion a reliably sourced (The Hindu & Times of India), neutral, brisk for lead, avoiding copyright and most importantly in a logical sequence para should be read as. “In election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states however it was better than 40% recorded in 2009 for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.”

No one objected to free or fairness of election so it is not important here. 27 member country EU statement should be on election article as well as 57 member country OIC's post election declaration for inalienable right to self-determination of kashmiris and Pakistan & china foreign ministry releases post election. Human3015 said Mufti statement is political but are we here to judge whether any ones statement was political or scientific? sorry to say but CosmicEmperor is so non knowledgeable to this article's background that he/she is using "she" for "male" Cheif minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed. I think 115.186.146.225 thanked NeilN for his warning for edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. i leave this investigation on you. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I will also put this para as mentioned by IP 39.... ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. ^[1] In state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.^[2]"

Thank you IP 39... for such an effective advocacy mentioning my concern for offwiki collaboration of Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor. In fact Dispute is larger then this para we are fighting against few national hatred editors collaborating with their watch list full of indo pak articles as referred by you on talkpage "1. Whenever some one edit with pro kashmiri/pakistani insertion. One editor from this group deletes that with comments "Unsourced" 2. If he provides source then one of editor from this group deletes that with comments "Not a reliable source" 3. If he provides reliable source then one of editor from group deletes that with comments "Not a Newspaper" 4. If he re-edits to comply with WP not a news paper then one editor from this group deletes that with comments "No Concensus take to talk page" 5. In the mean while on the basis of three revert rule this group make that article protected. 6. If he tries talk page consensus this group editors converge and deny consensus and say original research. 7. Then they provoke that person in to heat of the moment and get him banned and then prove any new editor as socks of already banned users on same articles. In reality this group by themselves is a large sick nationalist socko master. 8. In the end they laugh on banned user like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users . RIP wikipedia neutrality.

I Hope strongly that this time administrators do not finish this dispute by declaring us socks of some blocked sick pakistani nationalist editor. We are only providing indian sources and indians own comments in support of our para. Nationalist from whichever country should be banned to set an example in a way that no one can misuse rules to gain undue advantage. Kindly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions should be utilized to maximum effect to remove this curse keeping in view these editors contributions log and articles history on Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts Jammu_and_Kashmir Kashmir_conflict Gilgit-Baltistan Azad_Kashmir and so on. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion at the talk page, so that the issue is ripe for dispute resolution. A question for the coordinator is whether, in view of the number of participants and the nature of the topic, which lends itself to battleground editing because it is a real battleground, this board is the best venue, or whether formal mediation might be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Also, there is a thread at WP:ANI concerning the issues at this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, I am Steve. I have collapsed the above discussion and will not be addressing it's contents as I do not feel it will be productive. I will be personally handling this case. I will be reading over the article in question and the associated talk page today. Until I comment further here, I ask that there is no further discussion on the topic - I understand you all may have different points of view here, my role is to help you all come to a conclusion that you can all live with. More to follow soon - in the interim, go have some tea, or something :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I was late. Please do consider my comments on dispute in my allocated space before making any decision. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think now main issue is between auto-confirmed users and IPs, as per my perception no involved confirmed user have any issues relating to current version of lead which seems neutral.(In addition page has 203 watchers [21] who didn't objected yet). So only two IPs have some issues relating to it, and till now those IPs not given any valid reason for their proposed changes which seems biased. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 you should respect what Steve ordered us above to stop any further non productive arguments. You are not here to decide what is valid or not it is steve. This is beauty of WP that it gives all of us a chance to appeal irrespective how senior or junior, registered or non registered, 5 against 1 or 5 against 5 editors. Whatever he will decide i shall accept it by heart and request you all to respect his authority. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK, a few things. IP editor or admin, your opinions matter equally. I don't buy the "only IP's disagree therefore their argument is inherently invalid" idea. Arguments have to be weighed on their merits. Additionally, it's not my role to "decide" on anything, but to guide and facilitate discussion to help form a consensus that you can, in most cases, live with, but most importantly, that fits within Wikipedia policy. Now, a brief request. It appears there are two proposed article ledes here. Without any additional commentary, can a diff (link in the article history to the version of the article) to the alternatively proposed article lede be posted here for me to review (assuming that the current article lede is the second and current version). Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  @Steven Zhang:, I gave a link to the diff in my original dispute summary: [22]. If we can first discuss the pro's and con's of the two versions here, that would be a start. We can get to the other variants if need be. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Current lead as supported by group users is this "However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voter turnout in the last 25 years. European Union has called the elections "free and fair" and took cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for boycott by separatist groups.The elected Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed has remarked that the separatists and militants supported by Pakistan did not attempt to disrupt the voting in this round of elections.While former chief minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said Pakistan and militants have tried their best to destabilise the democratic process in Jammu and Kashmir"

• Proposed lead by both IPs is this "In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. In state election 2014 turnout was 65% for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• • IP has given current version and their proposed version. Following is pre-dispute original version.

• "However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.^[1][2][3][4] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.^[5][6][7] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.^[5]"[23]Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All three versions are referenced but for sake of ease to read and compare; I have removed references from oldest version added by Human3015; and bared it all in three comparative paras; It was not pre dispute version. It was version we IPs first objected and disputed but then playing clever india sock group got page protection and further added pro india unnessary details /refrences to arrive at POV push imposed "current version'. so finally dispute is between current version and IPs proposed version.

and proposed para is as follows ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. ^[1] In state election 2014 turnout was 65% ^[2][3][4]for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.^[5]" 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

On talk page of kashmir conflict IP 115.186.146.225 rightly pointed out that Disputed para in the lead be removed. It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last ten days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation.Whistle blowing is encouraged world wide so whistle blowers opinion should be respected here. I tried to remove this but see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history how Human 3015 is controlling this page and he also tried to intimidate by giving warnings me on my talk page in the name of 3 revert rule even though i tried it two times.39.47.50.14 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Administrative Note: The moderator User:Steven Zhang has indicated he will be off WP for several days due to a family emergency. Would the participants like to wait until he returns? Or would they like to close the case the case and move on? Please let us know. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We would like to wait and wish best to The moderator User:Steven Zhang for family emergency. Hope he will be blessed by god and on his return he will do the justice. User:Keithbob during this waiting period Disputed last para of the lead about election 2014 be removed. It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last fifteen days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: The edit-warring continued during the waiting period, and the page is under full-protection. If possible, I would like to request for a replacement moderator so that the issue can be resolved quickly. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User: Steven Zhang is now back on WP......... Steve, perhaps you could ping the participants and let them know. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If Steve is not available or not very active then it is ok to go with pre-dispute original version and close this case and move on. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Steven Zhang hope with blessing of God you must have relieved from family emergency. I agree with Human3015 that disputed election 2014 para should be removed altogether to go to pre-dispute status. Specially because election 2014 are already covered in detail in separate article here Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 . 115.186.146.225 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks 115.186.146.225 for agreeing with me lastly, now IP also want to restore pre-dispute version, thats good. Thats why I already restored original pre-dispute version before page gets protected. Hope this matter will be closed now. Thanks. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 you read again what IP 115.186.146.225 said. He wants to remove disputed para all togather about election 2014 which was inserted by you and disputed by him and me. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks all for your patience while I had to attend to Real Life™. Where are things at here - it appears we may have some agreement? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  Steven Zhang, Thanks for getting back. Our sympathies for your loss. The status of this dispute is still the same as what it was when I filed the request. The IP's would like the text to be Pakistan-oriented. Human3015 and I disagree. (CosmicEmperor is now out of the picture.) I suggest that we can start from the diff and figure out where to go from there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang, Thanks for getting back hope you will be fine. No kautilya3 it is not about this difference. Please see below both paras proposed by each party.

• Recently blocked sock user CosmicEmperor and his online collaborators see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users kautilya3 and Human3015 apparently ( pro indian group) want this version."However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces."
• and IPs proposed para is as follows ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. ^[1] However in state election 2014 turnout was 65% ^[2][3][4] for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.^[5]" 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang, Welcome back, kindly note that IP is keep on playing blame game, he is accusing us as "Pro-Indian", "Collaborators" etc. But in reality we are just following wikipedia policies. See recent edit history of Kashmir conflict, current version is accepted by everyone, there is nothing "pro-indian" in it, it just what is relevant in article lead. This IP wanted to remove it from lead but reverted by 4 experienced users,[24], [25], [26], [27] now does entire Wikipedia is "Pro-Indian"? Later admin protected the page on current version then again IP started blame game of "Admin is biased".[28]. Current version is accepted by everyone, even many "Pakistani" users have same page on watchlist but no one objecting it except this IP. Though I do believe that WP:IPs are humans too, but this IP is clear cut nationalist and want to add unilateral claims. You can see he don't want EU's views in lead, is it even matter of debate? This IP is just wasting time of community. Better we should close the discussion. --Human3015 knock knock • 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 please read kautilya3 comment (just above my comment) he started blame game against us IPs that we want Pakistan version, that is why I gave your group proposed para which is clearly "Pro-Indian" and i also gave details of you boths "Collaborations" with blocked user CosmicEmperor against user Pakistani commondo force etc. In recent edit history of Kashmir conflict User IP 39...... was trying to remove disputed para under discussion till honorable Steven Zhang decide here but you denied that by playing clever and getting page protected two times. You even tried to get IP 39.... blocked by trapping him in 3 revert rule using your indian buddy user Rsrikanth65 (who also comes to support your 3 revert game) but admins denied blockign IP 39......In fact by doing so you are not respecting this forum's importance. I believe in Steven Zhang decision so waiting for that keeping in view both parties proposed paras as i reproduced by me in my last comment above. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We can also start with this diff, when IPs added unilateral statement of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed which is neither welcomed in India(Kashmir) nor welcomed by any other international authority even there is no evidence that Pakistan government officially welcomed statement of Mufti, so there should have been counter statement to Mufti's statement so my given difference shows counter statement by ex-Chief Minister of Kashmir, that statement is just representative of many such counter statements. But still my stand will be we should retain pre-dispute version(current version) as adding trival statements of Mufti not even supported by his government don't deserve place in lead of parent article of conflict. (For references read collapsed discussion above)--Human3015 knock knock • 11:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 we have already heard 100 times your POV on mufti statement; All talk page discussion is filled with that. Let us all stop (including me) repeating our stances and leave Steven Zhang to decide as soon as he can to decide between following these two paras

• Recently blocked user CosmicEmperor, kautilya3 and Human3015 want this version."However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir. European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system. The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces."
• and IPs want this para ""In lok sabha election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. ^[1] However in state election 2014 turnout was 65% ^[2][3][4] for which elected Chief Minister gave separatist and Pakistan credit for not disturbing this round of elections.^[5]" 39.47.66.246 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Currant version accepted by the Community(except two IPs) is :

"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.^[1][2][3][4] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.^[5][6][7] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.^[5]" --Human3015 knock knock • 16:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 How can you call it consensus because election were held in the end of 2014 so this para was on this page in last four months with out any talk page consensus. We all have already assumed it disputed by entering this DRN. Now respect this DRN. Read above it has been cleared to you so many times that one IP or two IP or ten IP, WP have a fair system of DRN so stop repeating your POV to diverge attention of moderator. Steve please read paras proposed by both parties above and decide soon please. 39.47.66.246 (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for your patience. I'm going to nip this in the bud, as I see there has been quite a bit of edit warring on this matter. For the record, I reviewed the history of the article and as per Wikipedia policy, an article is normally full protected at a pre-dispute version, if one is known to exist. In this situation, the text existed for some time before it was challenged, hence it's protection on the current version. Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of which version of content came first.

I'll post about my opinion of the two proposed sections in a few minutes. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with a few comments. One, like all of you, I'm just a volunteer here on Wikipedia. While I have been doing dispute resolution for many years, I don't have any special authority to make a decision. That said, I would hope that as an uninvoled editor in this matter, that my opinion on the matter would be considered.

After reviewing the two proposed versions of the content, I believe the one that is currently in the article is the one that complies with Wikipedia policy more than the other, specifically in this case the one about undue weight. The main difference between the two apart from some wording differences is that one mentions a comment made by the European Union and the other mentions a comment made by the Chief Minister of the state Mufti Muhammad Sayeed.

Part of me wonders why the comments made by the European Union need to be in the article, since references 6 and 7 are just website re-publishing the press release by one member of the EU Parliament (though it does state it is on behalf of the EU Parliament, it is a press release). I don't feel in an article of this size, it needs to be included.

Likewise, the reference given from Mufti Sayeed should not be included in the article per undue weight. The reference speaks about how the daughter of Sayeed defends his comments, which as per the reference is disagreed with by many. It appears to be the opinion of him only - and to include such a quote in the article would be giving the opinion of one person far more weight than it deserves.

I'd go for simplicity here. Cut it down the middle. All parties have quoted the same references with regards to the voter turnout at the election. From the references I've read (namely references 1,2, and 4 in the current article text) the sources state that this election had the highest voter turnout in 25 years. So simply state that. I see no need to mention anything else.

There are currently two sections that mention this. The lede section, which currently has four paragraphs. Easy fix. Delete paragraph four in it's entirety, and add this text instead to the end of paragraph three, citing references 1, 2, and 4 I have previously referred to - "However, elections held in 2014 registered the highest voter turnout for the state in 25 years."

The other section (titled "2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections"), the first part which states: "The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 was held in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in five phases from November 25 to December 20, 2014. Despite repeated boycott calls by separarist Hurriyat leaders,[260] elections recorded highest voters turnout in last 25 years, that is more than 65% which is more than usual voting percentage in other states of India."

The first sentence is fine. The second sentence, remove "repeated" - you have one reference and the word repeated isn't mentioned there at all - it's called. the word separatist is fine - references describe them as such. Hurriyat isn't mentioned in that article, and one should not have to look at a Wikipedia article, then a reference, then a google search of someone mentioned there to find an affiliation. I'd say just go with "despite calls to boycott the election by separatists[...]. Part of the sentence after the comma is fine, but go with "[...] elections recorded the highest voter turnout in 25 years".

Lastly, after the table of voter turnout, delete the entire passage about the EU (namely "The European Parliament, on the behalf of European Union, welcomed the smooth conduct of the State Legislative Elections in the Jammu and Kashmir.[24] The EU in its message said that, "The high voter turnout figure proves that democracy is firmly rooted in India. The EU would like to congratulate India and its democratic system for conduct of fair elections, unmarred by violence, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir".[24][23][25] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23])

Lastly, delete this reference and all mentions of it - it adds no value to the text it cites as it is already supported by other references which actually state what is in the article text - this one does not.

This is my opinion on the matter - I hope you will take time to review it. I would like responses to the above to be no more than 200 words, solely referring to the content of my comments and not referring to each other in any way, shape or form. It's late in Australia here so I will review comments in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How Election are important if election winner is not? Then why we are covering such non important elections of 44% kashmir in the lead of whole 100% Kashmir conflict? Why National assembly lowest turnover with in indian states (with india source) not important? If 27 member EU statement is important then why 57 member OIC, other parties to conflict China Pakistan foreign statement declaring election not substitute to UN plebiscite important? These all questions are for User:Steven Zhang because others have already told their nationalist view on it. User:Steven Zhang See these further references and please provide your proposed para for lead. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hurriyat-Pak-allowed-conducive-atmosphere-for-polls-JK-CM-Mufti-Sayeed-says/articleshow/46418871.cms and http://www.dawn.com/news/1166786 and http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/i-stand-by-my-statement-on-pakistan-and-hurriyat-jk-cm-mufti-mohammad-sayeed/ http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=05_02_2015_001_008 http://nation.com.pk/islamabad/25-Apr-2014/ihk-polls-no-alternative-to-plebiscite-fo http://www.dawn.com/news/1168818 http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=05_02_2015_001_008 39.47.110.63 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@39.47 - You're under 200 words, but I'm afraid I do not understand your questions or comments or how it relates to what I've stated. This part applies to all of you - as parties you came here asking about two alternatives to a portion of the lead section, and I've given my view on the topic at hand. It's late here and this will be my last comment this evening, but to 39.47, please rewrite your above comment and focus solely on the dispute that is at hand (the two proposed texts for the lede section, and not focus on any other matter, or comment on any other editor or their motives. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@39.47, [redacted as per my statement on responding only to my comments. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)] And Steve, I will reply your message after sometime. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Steven Zhang, in short I will say that, like when content dispute was going on Kashmir conflict page then we seek for your opinion as you are non-involved neutral party, credible and your opinion does matters or your opinion can be taken as seriously. Same way in real India-Pakistan Kashmir conflict, opinion of non-involved, neutral and credible party like European Union does matters. If you see sequence in current lead for 2008 Jammu and Kashmir elections UN opinion is given, in same sequence for 2014 elections EU opinion is given. We can change wording of EU statement to make it small but article deserves mention of it. And you are talking about press release, so what's wrong with press release? Every decision of any government is released by press release. And what "one member" you are talking about? its press release by European Parliament. We can't take European Parliament as lightly as Mufti Sayeed's personal opinion to reject it. --Human3015 knock knock • 17:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The reference at the end states the source is "The Office of MEP Kosma Zlotowski", leading me to believe it might be their opinion solely. I also did a google search and found this, where it states "European Parliament's positions are established by a vote in plenary session [...], the plenary has neither debated nor adopted a position on State Legislative Elections in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir." While I wouldn't say that we can use an email sent to a reporter as a reliable source, it backs up my thinking that the EU reference is by one MEP and not the EU as a whole, and like the opinion of Sayeed, does not merit inclusion. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

   * Hurriyat and Pak allowed conducive-atmosphere for polls JK CM Mufti Sayeed quoted by India leading newspaper Times of india. Please see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Hurriyat-Pak-allowed-conducive-atmosphere-for-polls-JK-CM-Mufti-Sayeed-says/articleshow/46418871.cms

   * Mufti Sayeed credits Pakistan for peaceful polls quoted by Pakistani leading newspaper Dawn. Please see http://www.dawn.com/news/1166786

   * I stand by my statement on Pakistan and hurriyat JK CM Mufti Mohammad Sayeed quoted by India leading newspaper indianexpress. Please see http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/i-stand-by-my-statement-on-pakistan-and-hurriyat-jk-cm-mufti-mohammad-sayeed/

• Above one person said that we should delete mention of highest voting in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 and instead we should add voter turnout of Lok Sabha election. I want to say that, if we see sequence in the lead, firstly it talks about 2008 Assembly elections and voter turnout in 2008 assembly election, in that sequence we are writing voter turnout in 2014 assembly election. Moreover, we have to give Latest update, Lok sabha elections were held in May 2014, while assembly elections were held in December 2014, so assembly elections reflects more recent picture of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, there is nothing like which election is relevant, assembly election also very important elections and all national leaders including Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi were involved in these elections. [29]. --Human3015 knock knock • 07:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang Low participation by kashmiris in Indian National (Lok sabha) election which is important because state election are just about self governance so irrelevant to kashmir international standing/cause but national elections are about affirmation to india as country with which kashmiri want to live or not. Read this Indian leading newspaper reference it says Jammu and kashmir was having lowest turnover as compare to all other 36 indian states (even union territories) in National (lok sabha) election 2014. Despite double expenditure on election as compare to election 2009. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Highest-ever-voter-turnout-recorded-in-2014-polls-govt-spending-doubled-since-2009/articleshow/35033135.cms In step 3 of resolution, We are only discussing inclusion of National (Lok sabha) assembly elections 2014's turnover in the lead. Once we finalize step 3 then we will move to step 4 for state elections 2014 discussion. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep this on topic. This dispute is not about the national election, and I will not let this thread become a "all things wrong with X article". It is about whether or not the disputed section discussed in the dispute overview should be included in the article. I've given my feedback on this and I would recommend this be considered and implemented. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang refer to your comment above dated 30 June 2015 @ 16:30. You said i have commented on two proposed paras by both parties to the dispute. If you see IPs proposed para you will know that it included line about National (lok sabha) election (with leading Indian news paper reference). So if I am discussing National election low participation then off course i am not away from disputed topic (two paras).115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And I suggested content for the article, which I felt merited inclusion based on the provided references. I feel it (the proposed lede which included mention of the national election) was poorly worded and am not sure it is suitable for inclusion - a lede is a summary of the article contents, and none of the national elections are mentioned from what I can see, only state elections. I don't see what it adds that is missing from the article. That said, I'd rather not endlessly debate over the content of the article here - I've given my suggestions and input on this topic which is all I can do. This DRN thread started as a question of whether the EU statement or the one from Sayeed should be included, and I explained why they shouldn't be, and purely stating the results of the most recent election is suitable. We don't make binding decisions at DRN, but I've said all I have to say on this matter. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang after your comments of 13:53, 30 June 2015, you requested comments from all the parties involved. Four out Four accepted deletion of EU statement and inclusion of mufti statement so no further decision on that is required but as far as national or state election inclusion is concerned both IPS used the permission granted by you and gave this solid reasoning. 1. This article is about kashmir conflict (Not indian held Jammu and kashmir state). 2. In this article never covered state elections of Kashmir held by Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) or kashmir held by China (Aksai chin and Karakorm tract) then why Indian state elections only ? 3. State elections are about self governance of state hence not relevant to conflict 3. Crux of this conflict is India says kashmiri people participate in Indian national election hence they are with india while Pakistan/ Separatists rejects election as an alternative to United states granted right of self determination to kashmiris. 5. Keeping in mind all 4 points, it is more than logical to add this in the lead In lok sabha (National) election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. With this reference which is in it self from India and from leading news paper TIMES OF INDIA ^[1] 115.186.146.225 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I never said that your views were in favor of mufti statement. If you read my last statement again I said "After your comments of 13:53, 30 June 2015, you requested comments from all the parties involved. In those comments Four out Four parties to dispute accepted deletion of EU statement and inclusion of mufti statement so no further resolution from you on those two points is now requested". Thanks to your efforts for this progress but now we have to focus on national election vs state election issue because we have already spent one month in this dispute resolution process. For solving these last two points I repeat my questions 1. This article is about kashmir conflict (Not indian held Jammu and kashmir state). 2. In this article never covered state elections of Kashmir held by Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan) or kashmir held by China (Aksai chin and Karakorm tract) then why Indian state elections only ? 3. State elections are about self governance of state hence not relevant to conflict 3. Crux of this conflict is India says kashmiri people participate in Indian national election hence they are with india while Pakistan/ Separatists rejects election as an alternative to United states granted right of self determination to kashmiris. 5. Keeping in mind all 4 points, it is more than logical to add this in the lead In lok sabha (National) election 2014 voter turnout was 50%, which was lowest as compare to 34 other Indian states. With this reference which is in it self from India and from leading news paper TIMES OF INDIA ^[2] 115.186.146.225 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will ask the participants to state here that they agree with what you are saying that they agreed the statement by Sayeed should be included. @Kautilya3:@Human3015:@CosmicEmperor:@Faizan:, as my reading of their comments does not support this. I will not be addressing the other points you made - it is irrelevant to the reason this dispute was brought to DRN and will collapse anymore discussion about the matter. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang I am afraid you have not read last few comments since 30 June 2015, rather then wasting ten further day on this single issue out of four issues. Let me tell you 1. Cosmic emperor already blocked for sock puppetry. 2. Faizan by himself add mufti statement see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666051057&oldid=666015528 3. Me saying it through out 4. IP 39 saying it through out 5. Kautilya3 agreed for inclusion see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=669452451&oldid=669452142 6. Human3015 has already included even an ex chief minister's statement in the lead on 14 June 2014 (right after current CM mufti statement sentence) so by doing so human3015 by default gave his acceptance to both CMs statements. See this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666895617&oldid=666622144 115.186.146.225 (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Steven Zhang on the talk page of this DRN Robert McClenon rightly pointed out about your lack of attention to detailed discussions. Moderator first and foremost task is not to enforce decisions (as you by yourself admitted earlier) but to bring all parties at some convergence but you re opening solved issues of EU deletion and Syed statement. Are you a moderator or dispute re opener with weekly wake ups? 115.186.146.225 is a hard worker and he collected great details from article history, Talk page history, Talk page discussions, DRN discussions etc. steve u must have appreciated his efforts for making your moderation job easy but i can not see you bother to answer even one of his valid questions. If we will ignore right of valid argumentation on DRN then God help us. Disappointed 39.47.74.185 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not misrepresent my statements. I did not say that the moderator and coordinator was not paying attention to detailed discussions, except for a period that he was absent due to a death in the family. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I had placed a comment that was meant for the moderator's talk page, but it was saying that he had read the posts, not that he hadn't. I have reverted the misplaced post. Please comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon sorry for misunderstanding. I was disappointed because if one person is asking six questions then any moderator should answer them. Its his right and a professional Moderator should have complete knowledge of article; its edit history; its talk page discussion; then of this DRN discussion based on which moderator should reply. why solved issues are reopened and unsolved issues are ignored. Can we have a replacement moderator ? 39.47.74.185 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If another volunteer wishes to take over this dispute, then I am fine with that. This DRN was raised over one issue, whether the EU or Sayeed's comments should be in the article. I've explained my reasons as to why neither merits inclusion - doing so would give undue weight to the opinion of one person - the latter of which was widely disagreed with. A consensus of a handful of editors (and I see that as a stretch) does not override Wikipedia policy. Attempting to send this thread on a tangent by bringing up issues not related to why the dispute was brought here is something I'm well within my rights to ignore. As the other parties have not commented in a few days, I will close this thread by 00:00 UTC today as failed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: @IPs, No one is agreed on adding Mufti's statement, please read all comments properly. As you are saying why to only about elections in Jammu and Kashmir and why not election in Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan then read Talk:Kashmir conflict#Inclusion of Aksai Chin and Azad Kashmir in this page the discussion which I started long ago about inclusion of Human rights abuse and elections in Pakistan administered Kashmir, and Faizan is also agree on it, so that is not issue, we will write about that issue too. Moreover, we can't write about national elections as you yourself said "Kashmir conflict" is issue about entire Kashmir which includes Pakistan administered, China administered and India administered Kashmir then I see no logic behind writing about Indian national elections, writing about individual state elections in Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan will be relevant here. We should also write Human rights abuse by Pakistan in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan specially on Shias, pro-Indian muslims and other religious minorities. Moreover you IPs should talk in civil and patient way, once Steve was last word for you, you called him " Steve Sir", "Honorable Steve" etc, now he don't agree on your version then suddenly he became villain for you. You have to accept the reality that your version has been rejected by everyone. --Human3015 knock knock • 07:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang You are not failed so do not be disappointed see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=669354205&oldid=669349639 You by yourself said that you have commented on two paras proposed by both parties. Those two paras dealt with four issues 1. National election (Un resolved)2. State election (Un resolved) 3. EU deletion (every one agreed) so DONE 4. Mufti statement which is not an undue statement of any common person like you and me but A person ruling 8 million people. its inclusion agreed by each party to dispute (check detailed evidence of every agreeing to its inclusion in my last comment (including Human3015 who has already included even an ex chief minister's statement in the lead on 14 June 2014 right after current CM mufti statement sentence so by doing so human3015 by default gave his acceptance to both CMs statements. See this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666895617&oldid=666622144).

Steven Zhang thanks for solving two issues and undue forgiving of user Human3015 for his non stop uncivilized personal attacks including mimicry of other users. I agree with IP 39... and request for new moderator for solving remaining 2 issues. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• @IPs, Even I was insisting and was in strong favour of adding EU's statement in lead but Steve explained it very well and even I became agree on removing EU's statement, one should be flexible enough to edit Wikipedia sensibly. Same way Steve also explained why Mufti's statement should not be in lead, so you people should also accept it with big heart, don't keep on insisting same thing. Even if you change 100 moderators still it will not help you, no one will accept your version, we can't keep on debating on this issue till our death. I think we should close this issue and we should write what Steve originally proposed in his first comment that However elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years history of Jammu and Kashmir. Thats all, I will not comment anymore on this thread. Debate should be done with flexible people not with rigid ones. We all know these IPs will not stop debating till their version gets accepted. So this debate is becoming just wastage of time. As per my perception except IPs other involved editors are also agree on Steve's version. It will be better to lock this thread and archive it. Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It will be a great help to resolve this dispute if you keep your promise of making no more comments. Thanks a lot 115.186.146.225 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The present dispute arose as a result of an edit war regarding the last paragraph of the lead in this version of the article [30]. Human3015 and CosmicEmperor wanted no mention of the comments by Mufti. Faizan and the two IPs wanted a verbatim quotation of Mufti's comments. After talk page discussion, I made an edit [31], which I thought was appropriate for the lead. Since this version was not accepted by the IPs, I brought the issue to the DRN. To be fair to Steven Zhang, the dispute should be limited to these two versions of the last paragraph of the lead, and its elaboration in the body. However, the IPs have consistently attempted to broaden the discussion to other issues and presented more extreme versions of the lead paragraph. I don't believe that is appropriate. It appears to me that Steven's proposal has been accepted by all the disputants except for the IPs. I don't find their arguments coherent and focused. So it is difficult to address them. However, briefly:
  • The state elections in Indian-held Kashmir are being discussed in the article because the present phase of the "Kashmir conflict" is an insurgency in the Indian-held Kashmir, which started with allegations of a rigged state election in 1989. All expert commentators have stated that the Kashmiris' confidence in the Indian management was eroded as a result. Hence their increasing participation in the state elections points to an improvement in the situation and deserves to be covered in the article. Their participation (or lack thereof) in the national elections can also be mentioned in the body (not the lead), but it is secondary to the participation in the state elections.
  • The fact that the 2014 state elections were "free and fair" deserves to be mentioned in the lead if a suitable third party source can be found. Once again, the relevance is that there were allegations of rigged elections in the past. I had assumed initially that there was an official EU statement in this regard, but Steven has found that this was not the case. If some other source comes to light in future, I would want to include such a statement.
  • The fact that the separatists did not engage in serious disruption (such as threats, murders and bombings, as happened in the past) is also worthy of mention. Mufti's statement merely highlighted this fact, and I am sure it will be covered in detail in any scholarly treatements that might appear in future. For this reason, I am not averse to including a gist of Mufti's statement. But I am not picky on this point.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Steven Zhang Just like his fellow Human3015 user Kautilya3 is also lying. Here are proofs of Kautilya3 lies. IP 115.186.146.225 was being denied WP consensus on talk page by this group of Indian nationalist (one of whom is blocked for sock puppetry i.e. User Cosmic empirer) so IP 115.186.146.225 told them that he will go to DRN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=666601324&oldid=666597782 . Kautilya3 played smart and requested DRN quickly before IP 115 but with wrong description of dispute to which I objected in my description of comments section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=666896935&oldid=666883958 . This all proves bad faith editing of this Nationalist pro Indian group who were also involved in offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users . 39.47.101.1 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:Kautilya3 Now you have started new dispute between us by saying "separatists are worthy of mention for not disrupting elections". It is like, Barack Obama is President of USA since 2009 and no one assassinated him till now so we should give credit to all terrorists, contract killers and psycho-killers for that, we should thank all of those instead of giving credit to his security team.

Moreover, it is fact that separatists and militants tried their best to disrupt the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir. Read this J&K separatists call for poll boycott, Geelani's election boycott call resonates in his hometown sopore, Ahead of elections, militants attack army camp in Kashmir, 7 killed, Three attacks, 12 hours: Militants keep Kashmir on edge ahead of polls, PM's visit, Militants attack rural body member ahead of second phase of elections in Indian-controlled Kashmir Militant outfits in Pakistan desperate to disrupt Jammu and Kashmir polls: Army, End of the ceasefire and the infiltration of terrorists reignites clashes on Jammu and Kashmir border as militants and soldiers die. I can keep on giving links regarding how militants and separatists tried to disrupt the elections. Now read some sources regarding security arrangements during elections Indian army kill six militants crossing into Kashmir to disrupt vote, Tight Security For Phase Four of Jammu and Kashmir Elections Today, Tight Security Arrangements for Jammu and Kashmir Polls. I can keep on giving you sources, but you have to give at least one reliable source for your claim that separatist militants should be given credit for smooth conduct of election. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise Let us all stop blaming each other and based on tiny little consensus displayed by us in this DRN at some point of time we include in the lead "Participation in national election was low as compare to all Indian states ^[3] but in state election highest since disputed elections of 1989 ^{[4] [5]} for which Chief minister gave credit to Pakistan and separatist ^[6][7] which was criticized by Bhartia Janta Party and opposition parties in national assembly but he stood by his words ^[8] and her party chairman also defended his comments ^[9] " 39.47.101.1 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse: Steven Zhang I endorse this proposed compromise to make each party some sort of satisfaction. Remeber its human nature that we are never satisfied 100% so I make good faith request to all of you to give your go ahead to this proposed compromise. Find below table of contrasting positions of each party fully covered in prposed compromise

—  unsigned comment by IP39..

• Comment:Sorry IP39, your this version is also not acceptable. Our basic philosophy is that we can't include Mufti's statement as its his personal opinion only recognized by his daughter. Mufti is not even winner of election as his party got just 28 seats out of 87. Read details in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014.If we are not mentioning Mufit then there is no need of mentioning BJP. Also no need of mentioning national elections as everything started with rigged Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 1987 (not 1989) which led insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989. So there is always importance of state assembly elections, not national elections, because national elections were never been rigged. 1987 state elections were rigged and people didn't got their desired outcome in election and they thought they have been cheated which later turned into armed insurgency in 1989. So insurgency was started with state elections, since then state elections have been most important for Kashmir. But anyway, thanks for your efforts for creating chart. --Human3015 knock knock • 03:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - I'm closing this dispute as failed, for a few reasons. The main reason is that my assessment of the dispute is that there are involved editors that may have personal opinions here which are not able to be reconciled with Wikipedia policy, and thus an attempt to conduct dispute resolution may be futile. I would strongly recommend the proposals I suggested be implemented, with further community input sought on the alternatives for inclusion, but for now, this discussion is over. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:59, 9 July 2015 (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.

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

• Terrorism in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• LahiruG (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Terrorism in Sri Lanka was created by User:LahiruG recently but he has only included some aspects of terrorism in Sri Lanka. I have tried four times to add missing aspects from the subject - state terrorism - but on each occasion LahiruG has removed the addition: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first three times my addition were reduced to single sentence. On the fourth time my addition has been completely removed.

We have tried to discuss the dispute on the talk page.

LahiruG claims that having anything more than one sentence on state terrorism is a violation of WP:NPOV as there is a separate article on the subject.

I believe the opposite is true. LahiruG has included in this article a lot of content which are covered in other articles - Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, 1987–89 JVP Insurrection, Prevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka) but he wishes to suppress content from Sri Lanka and state terrorism. This is a violation of WP:NPOV.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on the talk page but it is clear we are not going to agree.

How do you think we can help?

Help us decide whether it is a violation of WP:NPOV to include anything more than one sentence on Sri Lanka and state terrorism in this article

The article Terrorism in Sri Lanka was created by me to describe the topic non-state terrorism in Sri Lanka, a highly notable topic which was missing in Wikipedia for many years. By creating this page I have intended to describe about the subject, its history, its root causes, disastrous incidents and the hardships people went through due to it, rather than elaborating on state terrorism which is already covered in a separate page which was created in 2006. After I have created this page, User:Obi2canibe started to elaborate on 'State Terrorism and Sri Lanka' in this page with giving a undue weight to it. At one stage this page too looked like a stub on state terrorism, due to POV editing of him (example). I understood the intentions of User:Obi2canibe and moved the content to the talk page and started a discussion on whether it is required to elaborate on state terrorism in this page too, a subject which is already covered in State terrorism and Sri Lanka.

I don't think it is necessary to elaborate on 'state terrorism' in 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' or vice versa, as it will cause many disputes in future too, among the editors who will be involved in editing these pages. If it is necessary to elaborate on state terrorism in this page, then I believe a section on 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' should be added to the page 'State terrorism and Sri Lanka' which is also related to state terrorism of Sri Lanka. If it is decided to do so, then I believe that it should be done by a neutral editor to avoid a potential violation of NPOV and to avoid these pages becoming a battle ground.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has not been extensive. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but I would suggest that there should be further civil discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Hello @Obi2canibe:, and @LahiruG:, I'm Steve, a volunteer here at DRN. My apologies for the delay in this case being addressed. That said, this is pretty clear cut to me, and not necessarily from an NPOV view but a content accessibility view. It's very common on Wikipedia for a broader or overview topic (such as this one) to link to other topics and provide a brief summary of related topics and link to them, such as how this article does. Readers might want to read about related topics. so linking to them and providing a brief overview is appropriate. The content of each of these articles and whether they are balanced, neutral and reliably sourced articles is a different matter altogether, but on the question of inclusion, I think it's only reasonable. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. An uninvolved editor, Blackknight12, has inserted a paragraph on state terrorism in what he believes is a neutral tone. I am happy with it. I hope LahiruG can accept this and your comments above.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 07:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for joining the discussion Steven. Though I oppose the move of [user:Blackknight12] to add a section on state terrorism in the page 'Terrorism in Sri Lanka' without having a consensus here or at the talk page, I have not removed it or tried to do the opposite. Anyway, I am very surprised with it, and I have big question on why the so called uninvolved editor [User:Blackknight 12], has not added a separate section on similarly related 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' in 'Sri Lanka and State terrorism' page or at-least about the major insurrections/ war that have happened in Sri Lanka within the last 4-5 decades. WP:NPOV states that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias", but I am afraid it is not the case with 'Sri Lanka and State terrorism' because it clearly takes a side, while only this page has to explain everything.--LahiruG ^talk 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's quite common for articles to branch out and not directly link to each other in the same fashion - for example, the article on Weather has a brief section on Weather forecasting, with a link to the main article. However, Weather forecasting does not have a similar formatted link to the Weather article - it is a sub-topic of the parent article. In this case, Sri Lanka and state terrorism is a sub-topic of Terrorism in Sri Lanka, so while there should be a wikilink back to the Terrorism in Sri Lanka article, having a summary and a link back to the Terrorism in Sri Lanka is unsuitable - the purpose of this feature is to provide a brief overview of a sub-topic (State terrorism is a sub topic of overall terrorism) and is not about neutrality (the content of both of these articles definitely needs work, but that is not the issue brought here to DRN.). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the other stuff exists scenario you have given is quite different to the situation we have in this case. Having a small section on state terrorism in this page is not a big issue, but the problem is that there is a big possibility of that brief section on state terrorism will go out of proportion due to POV editing of some users in the future and will be given an undue weight. I have given an example already how this page too looked like a stub on state terrorism at one stage, due to bias editing of User:Obi2canibe. So what is the solution you suggest to prevent this? The state terrorism in Sri Lanka is related to the war, insurrections and the groups involved in those issues. I believe a brief introduction on those aspects should also be given in the that page too, to balance the coverage.--LahiruG ^talk 09:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@LahiruG: there is no policy basis for excluding content from an article simply because of what might happen in the future. Besides, the state terrorism section on Terrorism in Sri Lanka accounts for less than 5% of the article. How does that make it a stub on state terrorism?

Earlier you wanted to exclude state terrorism from Terrorism in Sri Lanka but now that you have not found any policy to support your argument you want to expand Sri Lanka and state terrorism to include other terrorism. What policy basis is this based on? WP:NPOV requires an article to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The topic covered by Terrorism in Sri Lanka is terrorism in Sri Lanka and so it should include all terrorism in Sri Lanka, irrespective of who carried out that terrorism. The topic covered by Sri Lanka and state terrorism is state terrorism in Sri Lanka and so it should only include state terrorism.

You have dismissed @Steven Zhang's example as WP:OSE but it clearly exemplifies how the Wikipedia community expects WP:NPOV to be interpreted. Take another example, Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992, which has been spun off from United States presidential election, 1992. The latter has content on the campaigns of all the candidates in the election but the former only details Ross Perot's campaign. Based on LahiruG's argument, this is a violation of WP:NPOV, it should contain content on the campaigns of all the candidates. How was Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992 able achieve Featured Article status if it violated one of the core content policies?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: I was expecting a reply from the mediator, anyway What I have said is that at one stage the page on Terrorism in Sri Lanka too looked like a stub on state terrorism, due to the bias editing of yours. It was around 40% at that stage and now you are trying to misinterpret what I have said above, to deceive the others.

WP:OSE states that it is a rationale that may be valid in some contexts but not in others. Since most of the countries that have separate pages on 'state' and 'non state terrorism', do not have separate section on each other, WP:OSE is not a valid strict Wikipedia policy to add a separate section on state terrorism in this page. The examples you have used are pretty much irrelevant to the situation we have in this page.

The topic covered by 'terrorism in Sri Lanka' is the non state terrorism of the country and it is the general term used in Wikipedia article titles to address non state terrorism related issues by country (See others pages on terrorism by country). Anyone who reads the page State terrorism in Sri Lanka can understand the non neutrality of that page due to one sided bias editing. The page on Terrorism in Sri Lanka is very much different to the other at the moment. BTW, do you know the new user, who has removed the sourced section on proscribed organizations (initially added by User:Blackknight12) in the page 'terrorism in Sri Lanka'? If yes, tell him not do so, because probably he will be in trouble if he gets reported. --LahiruG ^talk 07:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The article you started is called Terrorism in Sri Lanka, it is not called Non-state terrorism in Sri Lanka. By restricting the content of the article to that which you approve of you have taken WP:Ownership of content.

Your assertion that terrorism is "the general term used in Wikipedia article titles to address non state terrorism related issues by country (See others pages on terrorism by country)" is not backed up up any evidence. I have found the contrary to be true: Terrorism in Iran, Terrorism and counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, Terrorism in Syria; Terrorism in the United Kingdom and Terrorism in Uzbekistan. The Terrorism article itself has a section on state terrorism.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:20, 7 July 2015 (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.

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

• Greek bailout referendum, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Impru20 (talk · contribs)
• EconomicsEconomics (talk · contribs)
• 94.66.43.52 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute involves the inclusion of a GPO poll on the Greek referendum. The polling company, GPO, said that the numbers were released prematurely and where only fragments of a larger study, and that it would take legal measures to ensure the quality and security of its research. After these numbers were leaked several news sources (e.g. the Guardian) reported them, although later questioned their validity. There is currently a dispute going on concerning the inclusion of these poll results in the article. Numerous users have requested that is removed or hidden until GPO releases the rest of its results, while one user is bent on maintaining them. Simultaneously, another poll by the company Palmos was hidden because it also was leaked prematurely from its polling company, even though it was also reported several times. There is a large and rather antagonistic dispute going on in the "talk" page that might or might not be motivated by private opinions on the Greek referendum. The first poll in question, that by GPO, is the sole poll to show a the "yes" side having a lead, which might possibly be contributing into the arguments concerning its inclusion into the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to enter the dispute using a more conciliatory tone hoping to communicate between the two sides. This attempt was unsuccessful.

How do you think we can help?

The most straightforward way would be decide if it follows Wikipedia's standards to publish this prematurely leaked and incomplete poll or not on the official page, and then follow a similar guideline considering the Palmos Poll as well.

Dispute consisted on whether to publish or not the results of an opinion poll's leaked results which were considered incomplete and unauthorised by the pollster itself. One user insisted on considering the data as official despite the pollster having denied it, arguing that secondary sources were doing so, despite later those same secondary sources questioning the validity of the data due to the pollster's response. The dispute has centered on the GPO poll, as the Palmos poll went almost ignored by the user in question. However, I believe this dispute can be considered to be solved now, as GPO has finally submitted the final and complete results of its poll as we speak, which are different than the "incomplete" results initially shown, proving that the poll's earlier suggestion for publication lacked motivation. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment - Is this thread still applicable, or can it be closed as Overtaken by Reality or something? The actual referendum happened. Is a leaked poll still notable? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2015 (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.

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

• Talk:MGK#Name dispute (the ending of the confusion) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Noq (talk · contribs)
• PsychopathicAssassin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor is insisting that MGKs own web page is definitive for his birthname and trumps the police report provided that gives his first name as Richard. This has been going on for some time and he has been reverted several times by several editors including myself. Initially this was discussed on my talk page here Talk:Noq#MGK and further discussion on the article talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have pointed the editor to several policy documents both in the talk pages and in the edit summaries.

How do you think we can help?

I need someone else to review the edits.

• Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the talk page, it has not been extensive, and so dispute resolution appears to be premature. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2015 (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.

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

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Should infoboxes for USA towns have US pushpin maps (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cs california (talk · contribs)
• Ammodramus (talk · contribs)
• MrX (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)
• Ebyabe (talk · contribs)
• GroveGuy (talk · contribs)
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs)
• hike395 (talk · contribs)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs)
• Sbmeirow (talk · contribs)
• Mattximus (talk · contribs)
• Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)
• Gmcbjames (talk · contribs)
• Cobblet (talk · contribs)
• Dirtlawyer1 (talk · contribs)
• Djflem (talk · contribs)
• JonRidinger (talk · contribs)
• Student7 (talk · contribs)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Help with determining consensus (or if there is valid demonstration of), Several users are not grounding arguments with WP:PG, avoiding and dismissing arguments grounded in WP:PG, rather than productively counter to reach a consensus.

1. Infobox design for cities allows 3 maps.
2. Inclusivity: provides additional context for
   1. Non-US individuals(almost 2/3 users), per MOS:INFOBOXReaders greatly outnumber editors, and to summarize key facts
   2. People with disabilities: dyslexia and some illiteracy. per MOS:INFOBOX supported by The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance and Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Add_a_picture
3. Large cities (where more there are more visits and edits) and Non US cities provide pushpin maps and have some have pushpin maps for about 5 years[32][33][34] [35] agrees with Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing
4. Featured Articles chosen for quality has pushpin maps and reference guide example Minneapolis also has pushpin maps(for 5yrs), my edits followed example given.
5. As for the cluttering of pages: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress

1. Clutters page with short articles
2. Images, maps and flags should not overwhelm the text and should be removed
3. Some large cities and non-US cities do not provide pushpin maps which agrees with Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing
4. Minneapolis was a featured article on June 28, 2007 per MrX

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities and User_talk:Cs_california.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest which arguments are legitimate & address concerns, move the discussion towards consensus, facilitate resolution to avoid edit warring by suggesting possible solutions:

1. Are we allowed to pushpin maps of countries and do they help users?
2. If maps do not help are we allowed to remove them from all articles that have an additional pushpin map (even if they were previously featured)?
3. Should we only add them case by case base on population size or other feature?
4. Should we use other maps?

If no consensus is reached suggest next course of action.

I don't believe this is the best place to resolve what is essentially one editor wanting to make widespread edits against established convention for geographic articles. Also, there is an ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Cities#Should infoboxes for USA towns have US pushpin maps?, which would seem to disqualify the matter from dispute resolution here.- MrX 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of state-level pushpin maps, but the full US map looks terrible. I've edited hundreds of articles that the US pushpin maps have been added to, and they just look silly. State-level pushpin maps tell a story; US pushpin maps tell nothing, especially when they hang right below a state pushpin map, as they often do. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Niteshift36, Nyttend and Rcsprinter123 have expressed the issue well. Consensus is against the USA pushpin maps in cities/towns/villages. This is an inappropriate venue for trying to change that consensus. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 13:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be here. The "discussion" at the talk page has been a few responses with little meaningful discussion. I've yet to see anyone supporting fat dot map, but experienced editors of many interests all seem to oppose it. This isn't really a dispute. It's a case of WP:IDHT. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is forum shopping; Cs california's argument has already been repeatedly rejected at the above-linked Wikiproject Cities (several of us have noted that it's basically a matter of beating a dead horse), but instead of accepting the consensus there, Cs california comes here. Nyttend (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend's summary, above. This has been discussed in detail at WT:CITIES for a while and there is no consensus for what Cs California wants to have done, so they are just moving it here because they won't admit defeat.. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 10:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The guideline MOS Infobox states "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Local consensus cannot override a generally accepted policy or guideline as "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Editors are allowed to add up to 3 push-pin maps of their choice on an article by article basis. Consensus applying to the use of push-pin maps (which one and how many) to all cities in the world and to all editors cannot be obtained on a WikiProject talk page. The right venue to begin a proposal to change policies or guidelines is Wikipedia's village pump for idea incubation. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion has shown that consensus leans toward a article by article approach and not the establishment of a policy standard.Djflem (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the difference between the two Mammoth Lakes, California: Difference between revisions changes (toggle for affect, if you're not familiar with it) allows people unfamiliar with the geography of the US (and for us when we view their couuntries) to see where some place fits into the big picture. I am so npov, though, that I probably won't have a lot more to say! Student7 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute here; this matter has been addressed and resolved in several locations, most definitively at WP:USCITIES. In a rather unfortunate case of forum shopping and bad old WP:IDHT, User:Cs california appears to be ignoring consensus and battling away at an issue that has been resolved. As one of the first editors to raise the issue that these maps are unnecessary and distracting, I'm not sure why I was not included in this discussion as a party to the "dispute". Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The number of editors listed here is much larger than is usual at this noticeboard, which is intended for "lightweight" dispute resolution. One possibility would be formal mediation. However, since some editors have disagreed with continuing this discussion here, it is likely that the prerequisite for formal mediation, agreement of a majority of editors, might not be met. Another possibility would be a Request for Comments. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am recommending that the coordinator may decline this case due to the large number of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2015 (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.

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

• Talk:Berkeley Heights, New Jersey (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BerkeleyHeights (talk · contribs)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a case of what Wikipedia refers to as "disruptive editing." The edits and deletions by another user were solely restricted to my contributions relating to unfavorable information. The reader/editor is disingenuous: Sometimes the reader/editor claims the basis for his deletions or edits were the strength of my citation, yet entire sections of the article contain information that is completely uncited, but the reader/editor leaves them untouched. Wikipedia is not an advertising or promotional site or meant to only contain information which the reader finds favorable or flattering.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have communicated on the Berkeley Heights talk page, on the individual's talk page, and also described the basis for my contributions in the "View History" tab. Further, I even edited my own contributions in order to address his complaint that I am using Wikipedia as a news site. I merely used news articles as sources.

How do you think we can help?

If the information I have written is factually correct, accurately cited, and in compliance with Wikipedia rules, then it should remain intact. Whatever rules Wikipedia has in the case of disruptive editing should be adhered to.

• Volunteer note - The requesting editor should notify the other editors of this request. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note' - I've read the talk page and article revision history, this one is open and shut. Wikipedia requires all articles to be neutral, balanced in proportion and rely on reliable sources, the content added does not meet, at minimum, the last criteria - Patch.com clearly states it is from user generated content, so it is unacceptable to be used as a source. I'm closing this as resolved, purely because the dispute outcome is very clear. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 04:10, 11 July 2015 (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.