Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	27 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 12 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	23 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Bon courage (t)	3 hours
Genocide	Closed	Bogazicili (t)	11 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	6 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	4 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 17 hours	EncreViolette (t)	1 days, 19 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Example on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

• Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Example3 (talk)

Telangana movement

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Telangana movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a section that one user wants to be added and the other opposes it. There have been attempts to get mutual consensus and a 3rd party opinion was also sought. But nothing seems to have changed. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vamsisv (talk · contribs) Ramcrk (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Telangana Movement}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Mutual discussion on talk page. 3rd party opinion How do you think we can help? Both users have their POVs but not aware how the information should be captured on the article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Vamsisv (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Telangana Movement discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. For reviewers, this is the section in question. I haven't read it, but perhaps a primary reason for opposition is that it might seem excessive: perhaps it can be adequately summarised? Nightw 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the link to the section, Night w. Vamsisv, I think the issue here is that this section is focused only on the negative portrayals of this movement, whereas Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This means that we should include both positive and negative reactions to the movement. You might want to have a look at this video that shows the basics of how this works, and I highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Criticism, which will give you more specific pointers. A good start would be to rename the section to "Reception", and to find positive points of view that you can include. Once the section is written from a neutral point of view, its inclusion in the article is much less likely to be disputed. I hope this makes sense - feel free to ask me questions below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your response. I'm fully aware that Wikipedia is written from a Neutral point of view and nowhere have I tried to stop any focus on any positive aspects. In the section, we are talking about the Rise of Maoist Influence in the movement - This *is* a negative aspect - what positive things can be written about this? I've been open to renaming the section and I have changed it from "Fears regarding the movement" to "Concerns regarding the movement". If there are positive reactions to the movement, I repeat that I'm not against them being included in the article. But it is unfair to stop me from describing the other side of the movement just because there aren't any positive reactions. Vamsisv (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC) How about my suggestion above? Rename the section as simply "Reception", and make it about the published reception of all parts of the movement, not just "Maoist tendencies". In that case, I would be extremely surprised if there were no sources that were positive about the movement. If you go this route, then due to reasons of balance, the remarks on "Maoist tendencies" will likely need to be shortened. In any case, the whole article puts too much emphasis on recent events, and coverage of recent events should probably either be shortened or split into daughter articles. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm definitely open to renaming the section. But the other user is completely against having this content as a separate section. He feels it is not relevant and has his own POVs regarding that. Vamsisv (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I've posted on their talk page asking for them to comment here. Let's see what they think of the compromise solution. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Maoist may be trying to fish in troubled waters of Telangana movement. But Maoists are not affecting Telangana movement in any way. We can include Telangana movement in Maoist movement page but Maoists references in Telangana movement does not make sense as Maoists are not influencing Telangana movement in anyway. In order to reduce the size of the Telangana movement article we moved lot of relevent info to other articles(The article used be a size of 142k in September; now its 52k). Its entirely inappropriate to include irrelevant info like Maoists in the article; let alone creating a section for it. Regarding too much emphasis on recent events; we summaized the movement until September 2011. We plan to summarize the events between September-Nov 2011 then move these details to another new page which can be called Telangana All people strike 2011. Ramcrk (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) There is a definite need to mention about the rise of maoist influence due to the Telangana movement and in some cases direct involvement or encouragement. It is a clear cause & effect situation. There are very clear sources & reference to support this. Vamsisv (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC) How do we proceed here? Vamsisv (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC) People from all kinds of ideologies supporting Telangana movement; from extreme right wing parties to extreme left parties like (Maoists). Leadership of Telangan movement are moderates. Even then for the benefit of the reader I have included the some media statementmets regarding Maoists in the article at the insistance of Vamsisv. But creating seperate section for this irrelevant topic is inappropriate and misleads the reader of the article. Even Police chief of the state declared that there is no active involvement of Maoists in Telangana movement. Ramcrk (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Again, for your reading convenience I'm repeating my stand, but you are continuing to ignore what I'm saying. This section is not only to indicate Maoists involvement in the movement (which is very diff from any other side's involvement) but also the RISE of maoist influence DUE to the movement. It does indeed deserve a separate section. Your argument is like saying - There are several other movements for separate states, so why should we create another page for T movement. Think about it. Vamsisv (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Rise and fall of Maoist movement should be discussed in Maoist movement page. Not in Telangana movement page. Only issues which is important to Telangana movement should be discussed in Telangana movement article. By including this section readers will get the impression that Maoism is big issue in Telangana. It is not. You can argue that rise of Maoism/Terrorism due to poverty. Should we include Maoism/Terrorism in the poverty article? Ramcrk (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC) This discussion will not go anywhere. I'm hoping someone can give a better perspective here and resolve this longstanding issue. Admins, request your help here. Vamsisv (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Request Admins/Reviewers to go through all the links/references in the section. There is a clear case for this section since there are multiple things related between Maoist Movement & T Movemement. One is the support of Maoists for the movement, Second is how T movement is helping to fuel the Maoist movement, Third is how many protagonists in the T movement are promoting Maoist agenda. Latest resource in this regard is this link. Vamsisv (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (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.

HIV

• HIV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:HIV Virion-en.png

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The image titled "Diagram of HIV" in this article does not seem to have a reliable source. I submitted it for deletion but it was kept. Nobody who opposed the deletion gave a reason which refutes my reason for requesting the deletion and yet the image was kept.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Be..anyone (talk · contribs)
• Optigan13 (talk · contribs)
• Xijky (talk · contribs)
• Pieter_Kuiper (talk · contribs)
• Beta_M (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=HIV}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have discussed this matter on the Talk page. I have requested that the file be deleted and entered into some discussion there. I have asked for advice at the Commons Village Pump.

• How do you think we can help?

I would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources. The image is currently sourced to dead links, is a dead link a reliable source? The source link points to an archive instead of to the originator of the image (the NIH). This appears to be against the rules for reliable sources. WP:NOR states that "all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source." One of the criteria for identifying reliable sources states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"WP:IRS. A web-archive does not appear to meet these criteria. There *are* similar images available from the originator of the image (the NIH) and if the image was to be sourced to the originator then that *might* meet the requirements for reliable sources. I have suggested this on the Talk page but to no avail.

DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

HIV discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• I'd like to make a comment that the image was uploaded to commons, and deletion request was initiated there, there was a clear Keep consensus, but we must keep in mind that the goal of commons is "educational" and not "encyclopaedic" content. Beta M 04:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beta M (talk • contribs)
• FYI: Privacy oddity with single sign-on Resolved with {{db-nouser}}, thanks. –82.113.99.212 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• DavoDavoDavo, can you please clarify your request some? I think you may be defining terms differently than Wikipedia normally does. First, the source of the image is not the web-archive, but the person/organization that created the image, which in this case seems to be the US National Institute of Health. The idea that the image should be "sourced to the originator" instead of to the archive, frankly, is not the way we do things - Wikipedia has long accepted that the Internet Archive faithfully reproduces the original content of the websites.

So, is your complaint that the NIH is not a reliable source for health-related diagrams? Or is it something else? I fear I must be misunderstanding you, but if that is your claim, please be more specific about why you think that to be the case. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ISSUE 1) It is common knowledge in research that when a person references a source that has multipul editions or versions (eg. a website that periodically updates its content; compair textbook referencing whereby only the most recent edition is referenced) that only the most recent edition or version should be referenced. Citing an older archived edition when a more recent, current edition/version is available is generally considered to be inadequate referencing. ISSUE 2) The reason reputable website publishers update their websites is so that they publish the most up to date correct information available. If the original links to the NIH are now dead that is a clear indication that the NIH has updated the information on their website and anyone who uses their information is responsible for making sure that they are referencing the NIH's *current* publication in order for their citation of the NIH's information to be both authoritative and reliable. It is not enough to simply argue that the image appears to be the same as a current image on the NIH's website. The NIH does not publish medical images only. The images that appear on the NIH website are connected to the information contained in the text of the articles and documents published there. This is important. What if the NIH has changed it's position regarding how they interpret the information in the diagram? What if they no longer believe that this is a diagram of HIV? Then the Wikipedia article would be making false assertions about the NIH. This is just an *example* of what *can* happen if the rules for reliable sources WP:IRS are not followed.

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:IRS. The Wayback Machine is an archive service not a publisher and certainly not a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking. The NIH, on the other hand, *is* a publisher with a repuation for fact-checking and they have a current edition of their website which supersedes their older editions such as the one archived on Wayback Machine. DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As for issue 1, that is not a standard recognized by Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. Perhaps it is a standard in some fields, that doesn't mean it's a standard here. I'm addressing issue 2 in a sub-section below. As for the Wayback Machine, that argument is flatly opposed to consensus here on Wikipedia, as I stated above - for an example, we actually have an instruction page on citing to the Wayback Machine at Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wait a minute. I just took a look at the users listed as being involved and they are the commenters at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIV Virion-en.png. The English Wikipedia does not have authority over Commons and Commons is not subject to the policies of the English Wikipedia. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of entering tl;dr territory, is your request that the image be deleted? Because that's a matter for Commons, not the English Wikipedia. If not, is your request that the image not be used in the article? If the latter's the case, I'd recommend that you add User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter as involved users and notify them, since you have discussed that issue with them at length at Talk:HIV. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes I should have added User:Nunh-huh and User:Adrian J. Hunter but since they are now clearly aware of the discussion I will consider them added.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, MsBatfish alerted us. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, I just did a lot of reading just in order to try to make an educated comment on this matter. My conclusions are:

1) This isn't the right forum if you are requesting deletion of the image entirely. However I don't see adequate rationale for deleting the image anyway.

2) The Way-back machine is not a source, it is a snapshot of the source. It is an archiving service that preserves web pages published by others and its use does not somehow invalidate the source of the image. Using archived materials is a frequently done and accepted practice on Wikipedia.

3) I don't think the caption of the image needs to be changed from "Diagram" to "Theoretical Diagram". See diagram for more information about what diagrams are. It is not purporting to be a photograph or an exact true-to-life depiction. MsBatfish (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm not here to request deletion of the image, I already did that in the appropriate forum. Your insight into whether or not the image has "adequate rationale" for deletion needs to be expressed as comments pertaining to the reason for deletion request - unreliable sources. 2) "The Way-back machine is not a source..." - You said it. And yet images posted within Wikipedia articles are required to have a reliable source. The NIH might meet that standard but Wayback Machine does not according to the rules of WP:IRS. If there is an image currently published by NIH on their website then why isn't that image's reference being used for the image on in the HIV Wikipedia article? 3) The image caption is not the issue being discussed here.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is the third forum DavoDavoDavo has petitioned with this issue. He states he "would like a definitive judgement regarding whether or not the image meets the requirements for reliable sources". But he's obtained that judgment twice already, once on the article's talk page, and once more when he nominated the image for deletion on Commons. To waste more peoples' time on this issue because he doesn't like the two previous results seems to border on bad faith. I trust he will simply accept the third judgment as final. To avoid more people having to do a lot of reading: the diagram of the structure of HIV included in the HIV article is not in the least bit controversial. Such diagrams (never labeled as "theoretical") have appeared in the medical and scientific literature from shortly after the time the HIV virus was discovered in 1984. (Such a diagram appears, for example, in The Medical Management of AIDS by Merle A. Sande & Paul Volberding; earlier examples can probably be found.) Since that time, photomicrographs (a link to which was provided to DavoDavoDavo on the HIV talk page) have demonstrated that the structure of the virus as depicted in the diagram is correct. Similar diagrams are ubiquitous and routinely appear in medical textbooks. And such diagrams have appeared in the popular press as well as in the scientific press. For example, Gallo's diagram appeared in his January 1987 article in the popular magazine Scientific American. The fact that we provide a link to NIH is a matter of convenience; whether the link is dead or live, the diagram's source is not a matter of controversy, except, apparently, to those who want to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS. (Those interested will find an assortment of similar images by searching for the key words "HIV" and "structure" in Google images). The only significant difference between our illustration and theirs: ours is drawn by a WIkipedian who has released it under the GFDL. - Nunh-huh 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You claim that I have already "obtained... judgment twice already... " in this matter but you can't show me where my concern has been answered. Several people have responded but their responses have not addressed my expressed concern - source reliability. Are you prone to telling lies? You are trying to misconstrue my intentions. Isn't that 'bad faith'? You remind us that the diagram is not "controversial", but to what end? I'm not concerned about whether or not the image is controversial nor have I expressed any such thing. You claim that you have provided links to photomicrographs on the HIV talk page but all you actually provided was links to copyright free images for cell phone wallpaper. Is this what you call honesty? You claim that you provide a link to the NIH website as a matter of convenience but there is no link at all to the NIH, only to Wayback Machine. Honesty? You imply that I'm trying to convince Wikipedia's readers that there's some doubt about the cause of AIDS but my intentions here have been clearly stated and they concern the reliability of the source of the image. Honesty? Could you please restrict your comments to the current discussion - so as to not waste other people's time? DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that you have yet to persuade a single Wikipedian that you have valid concerns, all that remains for the current discussion is for you to say "thank you" and move on. So as to not waste other people's time. - Nunh-huh 06:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you've been planting trees lately I doubt that anyone would have any reason to "thank you" for anything. You desperately need to get The Truth into your life.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know about that, though. He went to Commons for deletion, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. He went to the talk page for removal of an extant image from the page, the appropriate forum, though he was unsuccessful. (Not sure which order those were in, but I don't suppose it matters either way.) Coming here was also an appropriate choice, as far as I can tell, based on the instructions at the top of the page. Not the way I would have gone about getting a third opinion (or fourth or ... whatever), but still an appropriate option. Needless to say, unless I've greatly misunderstood his rationale, he's going to be unsuccessful here as well, but I don't think he was forum shopping. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Side point: Wikipedia:Third opinion is for disputes between only two users. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To be sure. I probably shouldn't have linked there, since I meant the term in its colloquial sense, not in its Wikipedia sense. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, an appropriate choice for the "remove" chain of requests, inappropriate for the "delete" one. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not shopping. Exhausting. We will have to see if he chooses a fourth go-round. (The order, if it matters, was HIV talk page, Commons deletion request, followed by dispute resolution.) - Nunh-huh 12:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually this is the fourth forum. The order was Talk:HIV in these two sections, then Commons deletion request, then Commons village pump, then here. So now 11 editors have spent their time responding to someone who has stated he's here to push he represents a group that advocates a discredited fringe ideology. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your animosity towards me is showing through the way you try to misdirect people in this discussion. I have *never* said that I am pushing a fringe ideology. The comments that I made on the HIV talk page were meant to express that you are not the only volunteer giving of their time for the benefit of others. I would ask that you keep your presuppositions and your prejudices to yourself and stick to the topic at hand - an issue that *you* have not been able to address so far.DavoDavoDavo (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was careless in my wording above, for which I apologise. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't count COM:VP because the result of that discussion was "wrong forum," not a substantive answer. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wayback machine is an accurate snapshot of the NIH image in the same way that microfiche or any other physical archives of a source are accurate. Myself and others have presented multiple sources supporting that the NIH/wayback image as valid and similar to multiple images from reliable sources. DavoDavoDavo's point has been refuted, they just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• If DavoDavoDavo feels so strongly that he needs a live link, he's free to use the current image locations on the NIH site and draw a free image based on them (photo, small diagram, large diagram). Until he decides to do that, citing the image on which our illustration was actually based remains correct. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

My perspective as a previously uninvolved editor (administrator):

Now that DavoDavoDavo's replied to the various questions and comments, I think we have a clearer picture of the situation. Part of the picture is that there were/are a few simple misunderstandings of fact on DavoDavoDavo's part, with regards to the Wayback Machine and editorial guidelines; both I and other editors have addressed those above.

The main, continuing, issue seems to be that DavoDavoDavo wants the image removed because of style concerns, not because of verifiability or accuracy concerns. DavoDavoDavo hasn't challenged the credibility of the NIH (in fact, he endorses it) or of the particular image; his strongest argument on that front is that removal or change of a page from/on the NIH's website might reflect a change in the NIH's stance. Such a position is unpersuasive - you challenge a reliable source with another reliable source, not with speculation. No such reliable sources have been provided thus far. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it is not the responsibility of the writer of the article to maintain the currency of the article's sources. Got it. Out of date archived webpages are acceptable sources. Got it. I don't agree with the idea, in fact it is potentially quite dangerous, but if that's the way things are done at Wikipedia then who am I to argue. If I understand you correctly, it is the responsibility of contributing readers to propose an update to article content or sources if there is new substantiated information which brings the content or sources into question?DavoDavoDavo (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There exists a dispute between myself and two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic, "Abode of Peace" and "The Holy Sanctuary" from the article lede. The case they make is based on the linguistic etymology of the names already covered in the Etymology section of the article, which suggests other meanings as well. They say that it's not NPOV to only have these two. I have argued and showed that these English meanings are the most commonly known for the name of the city in the two languages that are the most pertinent to its modern manifestation, and that they are there on that basis, not on the basis of the name's historical etymology which is covered in its own section.

The dispute mostly centered on the English meaning of Jerusalem 'Adobe of Peace'. I posted 14 sources to support that this is the widely held meaning of the name Jerusalem today. They dispute a few of the sources, but even if their assertion is accepted, there are more than enough reliable sources, 5 of which are from publishers of academic scholarly books, that support my position.

A third editor stepped into the discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to strike a compromise, which culminated in the motion remove also the widely held English meaning of the Arabic name of the city "Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]". I have tried to point out that the Arabic name is also not an exact translation of the English meaning and that it's there because it's the most commonly known meaning of the name in Arabic.

Jerusalem is a unique city with a burgeoning history of conflict, culture, theology and spirituality, recognized throughout the world. These meanings which reflect the modern day recognition of the city are there rightfully in the lede. Removing them compromises an important element of the city's identification in the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)

Though I believe I tried extensively to argue my position in good faith and with due respect, I found little such consideration from editors Nishidani and Zero000. They have both distorted my words repeatedly, focusing only on the etymology of the name and ignoring most of my comments regarding the reliably sourced validity of keeping these meanings in the introduction to the article. Their discourse towards me has been often derogatory and uncivil. Nishidani does not reply to the content of my comments on the widely held popular meanings of the name, but hurls repeated personal insults about my understanding of linguistics, when the inclusion I'm insisting that should remain is not based on the etymology issues they raise. I have ceased to try reasoning with them, though I would certainly make an effort if they'd display a change of tone and ability to discuss things civilly.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

• Nishidani: Yes.
• Zero000: Yes.
• Oncenawhile: Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jerusalem: Abode of Peace}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

We've discussed it extensively on the article's talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

I believe we need an outside look into the discussion on the talk page and some advice on whether the inclusion of these meanings must truly be based on etymology alone, which would necessitate including other meanings or removing them all. My position is that these most widely held English meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names, both of which might not be etymologically or linguistically correct translations of the names, are nonetheless the most widely recognized and the only relevant ones to the city's modern manifestation, and should thus be maintained as they are in the lede.

MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem: Abode of Peace discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Opinion of Zero0000

A big part of the problem can be seen at the start of this submission. MichaelNetzer wrote about "two editors who wish to remove the meanings of the name Jerusalem in Hebrew and Arabic". In fact, removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise when MichaelNetzer insisted on including, without even noting there is a dispute (i.e., in violation of WP:NPOV), a "meaning" for the Hebrew name that the scholarly consensus believes to be incorrect. This type of misrepresentation of the views of other editors, together for a penchant for not addressing any substantive points that others make, is characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that. I have to go to work now, but I'll come back later to make a brief summary of the real issues. Zero^talk 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to correct you Zero:

1. I initiated nothing. It was Nishidani who first proposed removing the Hebrew meaning, to which I began to respond.
2. These meanings have been there in the introduction long before I came to this page. I did not insert them nor "insisted on including" them (which suggests my inserting them). I am only defending their inclusion, and trying to show why they should not be removed.
3. I said clearly above that the dispute started with 'Abode of Peace', and that the suggestion for the removal of the meaning in Arabic was due to a proposed compromise. I misrepresented nothing, as you say. Please read what I've said carefully before making unfounded serious accusations about misrepresentation.
4. Though scholarly sources reflect on many etymologies for the evolution of the name, this is not the basis for which they are included in the lede. There exist enough sources, 5 of which I've posted by publishers of scholarly academic books, to show that 'Abode of Peace' is the most commonly known popular meaning of the name Jerusalem, and has taken root for nearly 2000 years, irrespective of other ancient meanings.
5. The discussion on the talk page, like your comment here, speaks for itself concerning who is misrepresenting the issues. It speaks for itself about who tried to address the others' concerns and who tried to remain respectful in the face of excessive personal remarks and condescending tone since the beginning of the discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the issue in a nutshell.

1. The canonical Arabic name of the city, Al Quds is uniformly translated "The Holy" and there is no dispute that this is the meaning of it. The word "quds" and its variants are in fact common in Arabic and carry the concept of holiness or sanctity. There are no scholarly debates over the meaning as far as anyone demonstrated.
2. The canonical Hebrew name of the city, "Yerushalayim", is a word whose meaning is uncertain. The majority opinion of scholars is that the "shalayim" part, which was "shalem" in ancient times, comes from the name of the Canaanite god Shalim. The origin of the "Yeru" part is unclear and several options have been proposed. Although the name (at least the "shalem" part) originated more than half a millennium before the earliest attestation of the Hebrew language, early Jewish writers connected "shalem" to the Hebrew root ShLM which gives us "shalem" (complete) and "shalom" (peace), and from this a popular belief arose that the city's name means "City of Peace" or "Abode of Peace". This belief remains with us today. It is possible to find sources including historians who give this as the meaning of "Yerushalayim", but much harder to find this opinion amongst the experts in ancient languages, who overwhelmingly prefer the Canaanite god theory. Some sourced notes on this that I wrote a few years ago can be found here.
3. MichaelNetzer claims that the modern "meaning" of "Yerushalayim" is different from the original, but has not brought any source in support of such a two-stage process. In fact it is easy to disprove. If "Yerushalayim" now means "Abode of Peace" regardless of the etymology, a Hebrew speaker who wished to discuss some other abode of peace could use the word yerushalayim to denote it. But this is impossible, since the word yerushalayim means the city and nothing else. (In contrast, an Arabic speaker wishing to call something holy can use the word quds and this is normal and commonplace.) Alongside the meaning of the word "Yersushalayim" as the name of the city, we find a majority opinion of the scholars expert in the subject that it means something about a Canaanite god, and a very common popular belief that it means something about peace. In other words, when someone says "Yerushalayim means Abode of Peace" they are stating a belief in the origin of the name, not claiming that it now means something it didn't mean before.
4. In summary:
   1. It is reasonable to write "Al Quds (The Holy)" in the lede, since this can be well sourced and is not disputed.
   2. It is not reasonable to write "Yerushalayim (Abode of Peace)" in the lede, since this gives sole prominence to one of several competing theories (violating WP:NPOV) and would mislead readers into believing something that the majority of scholars don't believe (violating the aim of producing a good encyclopedia).
   3. One way to deal with this would be to write something like "Yerushalayim (believed by scholars to be derived from the god Shalim but popularly interpreted as Abode of Peace)". A second way would be "Yerushalayim (uncertain meaning, see below)". A third way would be to leave mention of the meaning to later sections. As a compromise to promote the third way, even though the facts don't demand it, the meaning of "Al Quds" could also be left until later.

Zero^talk 14:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm happy to see my colleague Zero's long answer above, recognizing the need for exposition sometimes, after having pejoratively characterized some of my answers as "characteristic of his writing and anyone who has the patience to wade through the long essays he likes to type should realise that". It's also peculiar that he made no such comment about Nishidani's answers to me, which were on the average about 150% the length of mine. This is maybe consistent with a particular prejudice Zero displayed throughout discussions with me in which he makes remarks of a personal nature, or intentionally misleads readers and misrepresents issues as he does in his new answer above.

1. Zero has tried to change the direction of his argument by misrepresenting how the Arabic name and meaning appear in the lede of the article. Fortunately, even a child can see that it does not presently appear as "Al Quds (The Holy)", in support of this misleading case he makes. What is on the page and has been there, long before I came to it, is "al-Quds [al-Sharif] The Holy Sanctuary". For 90% of their argument to remove the Hebrew 'Abode of Peace', Zero and Nishidani, did not once mention that the present appearance of the Arabic name is also not a literal translation. "Al Quds" is truly known as "Al Quds [al-Sharif]", but the proper translation of the words into English, which no Arabic language scholar would deny, is "The Honored Holy" not "The Holy Sancutary". The reason it appears that way is because "The Holy Sanctuary" is the most common English meaning of the Arabic name, even though it is not a literal translation. (see response to this by Nishidani below this comment)
2. As Zero states above "removal of both "meanings" was proposed only as a despairing compromise". This affirms that Zero and Nishidani were more than happy to maintain a non-literal translation of the Arabic name, but would not tolerate the same for the Hebrew name that they so aggressively argued for removing. It exposes an unfortunate POV push on their part and a prejudice against Hebrew associations. As a result of my making this case for the appearance of the Arabic meanings, Zero now tries to take the position of demanding a literal translation for the Arabic and throws sand into everyone's eyes by arguing for the use of "Al Quds (The Holy)", when that is not the way the Arabic name now appears or has appeared in the article lede since they raised their objection to the Hebrew.
3. Zero also continues displaying a prejudice against the Hebrew name by equating an ancient meaning with a present one. While no Jewish scholar denies the pre-Hebrew foundation 'Shalem' relating to an ancient god, it is frankly irrelevant to the present state of the city. It is an ancient naming, and we do not even have evidence that the people who claimed it (the Jebusites) were the original founders of the city who named it. So we cannot even be certain that the meaning they gave relevant to the god "Salim" is the original one upon which Shalem is founded. But this ancient meaning has no relevance whatsoever to the current city because there is no Jebusite culture or people in the world claiming the city for themselves today. This ancient meaning belongs to antiquity, is properly expounded upon in the Etymology section, and has no place in the lede next to the common Hebrew and Arabic meanings that are most commonly recognized today for the city's modern demographics and culture.
4. On the basis of this coy POV push and prejudice, I've shown that scholarly sources affirm 'Abode of Peace' and 'The Holy Sancutary' as the most recognized modern meanings of the Hebrew and Arabic names.[1] Equating them with ancient names, given by cultures that are no longer in the world today, is not supported by any scholarly sources. It is a misleading argument intended for removal of the Hebrew meaning only, as about 90% of the discussion on the talk page shows. It is not proper for Zero to now claim a more correct Arabic meaning when he made no such case for most of the discussion. I beg the listening ear of editors and admins here to try to understand the validity of this distinction, and discern the sound reasoning for maintaining the lede as it is.

(Response by Nishidani to #1 in comment above)'

Wrong again. I'm getting tired of correcting these. People complain of my longueurs, but I leave a lot out mindful of our mortality. I could have added, as I will to the etymology page, this, which would have cleared up the misapprehension you are labouring under here. Namely, al-Quds (lit. 'the Holy') came into use as a borrowing from Aramaic qudsha in the phrase qarta de-qudsha (Compare Isaiah.xlviii.2) It was understood not as “city of holiness”, but as “city of the sanctuary”, as any rabbi in your area will tell you. This meaning in the combined Hebrew-Aramaic hermeneutics on the Isaian allusion filtered into Arabic to colour the contextual connotation of quds with the idea of 'sanctuary'. Back to silence.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: I've moved this down here because it disrupts the numbering and confuses the reading when inserted into the middle of my comment. I think it's better not to insert responses to specific points into the middle of comments. Placing them afterwards with a reference to the specific points avoids confusion and maintains an order to the text. As to the point of what you say, it seems to support the inclusion of 'Adobe of Peace' in the lede next 'The Holy Sanctuary' on the same grounds, because they are both derived meanings that have taken root in both languages, each in its own way, even though they might not conform to a strictly literal translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite futile for you to keep harping on your ideas and opinions. Read again, you haven't understood the import of that indication. You have, from day 1, simply insisted you know better than the sources, and have not adduced one skerrick of evidence for your primary assertion, disproved by google hits analysis, that 'abode of peace' is the default meaning of 'Yerushalayim'. Neither I nor Zero have a personal opinion here. We have consistently provided scholarly sources that show you have been wrong on virtually every assertion you advance. It's quite pointless to rehearse a debate that concluded with a consensus on the Jerusalem talk page, as you are doing here, tediously and in what looks like wilful obstructionism. That's it.Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You and Zero have done nothing but give opinions. I'm the one who posted reliable academic sources which you only give your slanted, distorted and deceptive opinions on. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It isn't obligatory or expected to include the literal meaning of a city name in the first sentence of its article. Indeed, flicking through some city articles, it seems to be sometimes done, but not usually. If a reader wants to know the meaning, it seems to me unlikely that they will feel inconvenienced by having to scroll down or text search, or that they will find it odd that they may have to do so. If there is *significant* dispute as to the meaning of "Jerusalem" (or, indeed, al-Quds), then it would seem wrong, per NPOV, to make it seem, in the first sentence of the article, as if there is a definitive meaning. If there is such a dispute, then it would also seem wrong per WEIGHT to incorporate the whole of the dispute into the first sentence of the article. I must stress that this opinion is fairly uninformed as to the substance of the issues, but I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about not mentioning any literal meaning in the first sentence and instead leaving it for a section lower down. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree it's not obligatory but the question is whether the article is made better by it or not. I think it certainly is in this case because Jerusalem is a unique city with rich meanings that are a significant part of its history and character. I also haven't found that there's a dispute about these meanings being the most widely recognized today. The disagreements are mostly around the origin of the ancient name of Jerusalem because history becomes more vague going back so far. But I haven't seen sources that dispute these meanings having taken root over time and becoming the most commonly recognized for the modern city. It's not as if there are other meanings that compete with them for current notability. I don't see a POV or WEIGHT problem in that regard. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you seem to be suggesting that there is no dispute about the meaning, but there is a dispute about the origin. Could you explain that a bit more? Because I'm having trouble working it out. Surely two different origins is pretty much the same thing as two different meanings (?). --FormerIP (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I would correct myself here and say that there is also no dispute about the ancient origin of the name, because we do not know the origin of the name. No scholar claims they know that the Jebusites who presided over the city before the Israelites were its original founders. So, we cannot even be certain they were the ones who originally gave the name Shalem. They might have conquered an existing settlement named Shalem but we have no archaeological or scholarly evidence either way to affirm or deny that the root origin of the name is based on the Jebusite god 'Salim'. It is simply the most ancient name that scholars have evidence for but it is not conclusive for an origin. There is also no dispute about the ancient meanings. No Jewish scholars deny the pre-Hebrew Jebusite name and its meaning. No one disputes the evolution of the name from ancient antiquity to today. Likewise no one disputes that 'Abode of peace' has become the most recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem for the modern city. I have argued against the removal of the Hebrew and Arabic meanings because of this distinction between the ancient names that are no longer relevant to the city's modern culture and demographics. Such ancient meanings belong in Etymology while recognized modern meanings belong in the lede. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

From all the different comments I am still having trouble piecing it together. Is this a fair summary...

It is common ground amongst academics that the name Jerusalem is something to do with the god Shalim. However, Michael's argument is that Jerusalem means Abode of peace or similar in modern Hebrew, which is attested to by sources. However odd it may seem to outsiders, many Hebrew-speakers therefore believe that Jerusalem means "Abode of peace" and what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article.

--FormerIP (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair summary at all, FormerIP. It is further somewhat odd that you ignore what I said above and insinuate that we should not place a sentence in the lede based on what "many Hebrew-speakers" say, as if I said such a thing when I've consistently based my position on scholarly sources. Where did you get such an idea from anyway? I ask you to be more careful not to make such misleading summaries of what I say. If you'd followed the link I gave to a recent scholarly source above,[2] or the others I cited on the talk page, you'd see these are not "Hebrew-speakers" at all, but a consistent scholarly opinion relative to the modern times meaning of name Jerusalem in English. If it's difficult for you to piece this together, then I suggest you try to stop assuming this as an issue of Hebrew against the encyclopedia, and then maybe it'll become more clear. Here are some expanded scholarly sources to further clarify.

1. Denise DeGarmo is a professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. She was recently a faculty fellow of the Palestinian American Research Center, an affiliate of the Council of American Overseas Research Centers. At Center for Conflict studies, she writes: "Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic {Al-Quds} it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’. "{Al-Quds}" is my addition for clarity.
2. C. Edmond Bosworth in Historic cities of the Islamic world writes: Various Arabic versions of Hebr.(source) are found in the sources even in ancient Arabic poetry. Whether Dar al-salam "Abode of peace" corresponding to Heb. ir hash-shalom, (source) found in Geniza letters of 11th century, was used also by Muslims has not yet been ascertained. indicating the prevalence of the Hebrew meaning. Originally published by Swedish Koninklijke Brill NV, "Over three centuriess of scholarly publishing".
3. Oxford Universty Press: Millennium: a Latin reader, provides the following: "'Jerusalem', (Hebrew) 'abode of peace', has an alternative trans. 'vision of peace' used from the Augustine onwards of the Church in heaven." This also shows 'Abode of Peace' being the prevalent recognized meaning of the name Jerusalem.

These sources and others clearly show scholarly recognition of the English meaning of Jerusalem. Many other sources across world culture affirm it as the most widely recognized meaning as well. None of my argument was ever based on "Hebrew-speakers". --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Conclusively shown to be not RS, and indeed a garbled statement, on the relevant talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
2. That 'dar al-salaam' (abode of peace) may or may not translate 'ir hash-shalom' (city of peace) has nothing to do with the discussion of the etymology or 'common meaning' of Yerushalayim, as noted on the original talk page.
3. The author is a Latinist. Construe this correctly. The source notes two ways of translating Jerusalem current in the 4th century CE, one 'abode of peace' the other 'vision of peace', neither of which is accepted by contemporary scholarship. This third source also says nothing to support your assertion that 'abode of peace' is the commonly accepted meaning throughout history and today of Yerushalem. A Latinist is not a RS for Hebrew, as argued on the relevant talk page. Sorry for the bolding, but you don't appear to read any answer to your adventitious opinionizing.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I asked you earlier not to insert your comments into the middle of mine. You did it again here in a further display or rudeness, lack of consideration and disruptive editing. Please take this request to heart and don't do this anymore. Here are my responses to your three criticisms that I've moved out from the middle of my comment:

1. There is nothing conclusive or sensible in your reason to reject this source. The writer is a reliable scholar and her meaning is perfectly clear.
2. It has everything to do with our purpose. The writer acknowledges 'Abode of Peace' as the meaning of Jerusalem. That is the only part that matters.
3. 'Vision of peace' is an alternate Christian translation and in no way changes the veracity of the default original Hebrew meaning that the writer acknowledges.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's your right. But I suspect when this order is followed, no one has the foggiest notion of what is going on. All your comments above are are pointless, being personal convictions, so I won't reply, except to repeat that Yerushalayim has no meaning in Hebrew other than 'Jerusalem'. Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you purport to know better than professors and academics who publish the meaning 'Abode of Peace' in scholarly publications. Well, you are entitled, but I don't see how that empowers you to remove the meanings from the lede, given WP guidelines for RS content. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be giving a folk etymology in the lead sentence in a way that makes it appear authoritative. Incidentally, the one meaning Britannica mentions, both online and in the hardcopy, is "Foundation of Shalem (God)". --JN466 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not "folk etymology" any more than "Foundation of Shalem". Please read this discussion and the talk page to understand that even "Foundation of Shalem" cannot be asserted to be the original meaning because no evidence exists for the Jebusites having founded the city and given it its original name. In that regard, all the meanings of Jerusalem are "folk etymologies". The scholarly sources I cited in the response above establish "Abode of Peace" as the recognized meaning of Jerusalem by academic scholars. Your point has been answered exhaustively and I'm sorry I need to repeat it if you haven't read the discussions and sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on three accounts. (a) It is called a folk etymology (b)no one ever said the Jebusites had anything to do with the name of Jerusalem, which is several hundred years older than both the Jebusites and the Hebrew language and whose probable meanings is determined by the abstruse discipline of semitic philology (c) You are now saying the results of semitic philology are to be put on the same level as folk etymologies, i.e., arcane science is just the same as uninformed opinion. You see why it is impossible to continue this humongous thread, now? You just talk past everyone, and create new errors and cause editors to waste time correcting them. Why do you persist, when no one can see anything but your POV trampling over any disciplined analysis of sources?Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss anything with your because of your personal attacks, distortions of what I say and inability to understand the simplest things about scholarly research of history. No scholarly linguistic source in the world asserts they know exactly when or how the name Shalem originated or what it meant originally. I persist because your painfully evident bias and offensive uncivil conduct in this discussion will not succeed in silencing me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, I'm just trying to work out the back story. It would seem fair to say that you are rejecting anything based on popular belief (?). So, is it a dispute about whether the etymological meaning or the literal meaning is best for the first sentence? And, as a side question, is "Abode of peace" a translation of the modern Hebrew for Jerusalem, or do the two merely sound similar? --FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, alright. But if you weren't trying to insinuate anything, then please be more careful. When you say: However odd it may seem to outsiders, many Hebrew-speakers therefore believe that Jerusalem means "Abode of peace" and what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article. - this is a grave insinuation of a racial nature and something that I never said. If you're not aware of it, you should be. And you should also not deny that the insinuation exists if you hope to improve your communication skills. And it's also not your job or mine or anyone else's to try to "work out the back story" as if there is something to this dispute other than what's been said in it. The only story here has been argued extensively and you are expected, as an editor, to assume good faith and accept the arguments for what they are. You are not required to try to figure out ulterior motives of "back stories". If that's not what you meant, then you should know that this is what you're insinuating by saying 'back story', and causing unnecessary mayhem in this discussion because you are confused and cannot communicate what you mean clearly. Now, here are answers to your three questions:

1. "It would seem fair to say that you are rejecting anything based on popular belief (?)" No it would not be fair to say that and I never said such a thing.
2. "So, is it a dispute about whether the etymological meaning or the literal meaning is best for the first sentence?" No it is not. I can't speak for the other side trying to remove 'Abode of Peace'. You might ask them what their dispute is if it's not clear to you already.
3. "And, as a side question, is "Abode of peace" a translation of the modern Hebrew for Jerusalem, or do the two merely sound similar?" What does it matter when scholarly sources affirm that this is the meaning of the word? Considering so many sources exist, the only way to dispute the inclusion in the lead, is to show scholarly sources that say 'Abode of Peace' is NOT the most widely known and recognized English meaning of the name of Jerusalem. I doubt you'll find such a source because I have never seen a source dispute it. Otherwise, it's not anyone's prerogative to try to second guess anything about these sources, and it certainly violates WP:OR for you or I or anyone to try to apply qualifications to them that they don't provide themselves. Especially when their intent is so clear in the sources themselves. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Again you pulled the 'antisemitic' insinuation out of the rabbit's hat in 'deconstructing' the putative motives behind an innocent request for clarification. A 'Hebrew-speaker' is not ipso facto someone of the Jewish 'race' ('racial'). To use this ploy again suggests you are reading behind arguments rather than addressing them.Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You intentionally lie about what I said, Nishidani, and deceptively distort the discussion. I did not say 'antisemitc'. FormerIP did not say "A Hebrew speaker". He said "Hebrew-speakers" in plural form, clearly referring to the Israeli/Jewish culture, the only one whose mother tongue is Hebrew and from which the meaning of the Hebrew name Jerusalem originated. Your deception, incivility and aggressive personal attacks have risen to new heights here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

When anyone tells another editor he has made 'is a grave insinuation of a racial nature,' no amount of wikilawyering caan wriggle around the meaning, which is that FormerIP was making a serious racial insinuation against Jews. The problem throughout these arguments is failure to closely construe things, references, blurbs, or other people's analyses.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are not many other ways to construe "what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article". It would be the same insinuation of a racial nature if FormerIP had said "Italian-speakers" or "Chinese-speakers", that's why I didn't say "anti-simetic". I accepted that he didn't intend it and explained to him that it's wise to be more aware of the insinuation, and take care to be more precise in saying what they mean. I don't see that I misconstrued something here and thought that I acted well and in good faith by explaining it nicely to the editor. I also don't see a problem here, except for the one you insist that exists, which doesn't seem to exist at all. Thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think by "back story," FormerIP just meant the context of the dispute, as it is a little complicated for those of us who are not familiar with this topic. Here is what I understand from the above:

1. No one is claiming that the Hebrew name for Jerusalem is derived from "Abode of Peace."
2. No one is claiming that Yerushalayim is a literal translation, or is close to a translation, of the English phrase "Abode of Peace," either in ancient or modern Hebrew.
3. There are many reliable and scholarly sources that state that the English meaning of the name of Jerusalem is "Abode of Peace."

I think what is confusing here is that usually, when we say that the name of a place "means" something in English, we are referring either to its etymology or its literal translation. Am I correct in understanding that "Abode of Peace" is a commonly accepted meaning, but that it is neither a literal translation nor a derivation? FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not quite correct, FCSundae. Generally, linguistic scholars will disagree about strict literal translations because differing languages have varying ranges of meanings to their words. This is especially true of Semitic languages such as Hebrew or Aramaic, where the meaning of Jerusalem is derived from. I've qualified what I've said before about this because some scholars do accept 'Abode of Peace' as a literal translation of the Hebrew 'Yerushalem' given the more broad meanings of the two parts of the name. 'Yeru' in Hebrew can mean 'To lay a foundation' such as a foundation for an 'Abode'. 'Shalem' can mean 'Peaceful' or 'Whole' or 'Perfect' and is written with the three root consonants (Sh-L-M) which are the root of the word 'Shalom', meaning 'Peace'. This is the reason that this meaning has taken root in the Hebrew language and why many scholars worldwide accept it as the meaning of the name 'Jerusalem'. It's also the reason your first 2 points are incorrect. I hope this helps clarify your effort to summarize. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Michael. Here is my updated understanding of the debate:

1. The argument that Jerusalem means "Abode of Peace" is not based on the ancient origin of the name of the city. However, the name's transition from the ancient Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalayim may reflect a shift in meaning.
2. Yeru can be translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful." Because of this, one possible translation for "Yerushalem" is "Abode of Peace." One of the core disagreements among editors is whether the expert consensus supports this translation. The sources MichealNetzer is using to support this are disputed by other editors of the article. At issue are the sources' reliability and the correct interpretation of their meaning.
3. "Abode of Peace" is a commonly given English meaning of Jerusalem, and all editors agree this meaning should be discussed in the article. The main point of disagreement here concerns its inclusion in the lede.

I hope my continued efforts to summarize are helpful at identifying the main issues here, to work towards a solution. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that in semitic languages yeru might mean "to lay a foundation", which is why "Foundation of Shalim" is one of the translations proposed by experts. However, getting from "to lay a foundation" to "abode" is a big stretch, and I wonder if MichaelNetzer can provide a source for that derivation. Usually "abode" is suggested as a competitor for "foundation", along with other options that include "vision", "fear", "heritage" and "possession". FCSundae, note that MichaelNetzer has not (and probably cannot) provide a source for a shift in meaning. All that can actually be established is that theories about the meaning have been many and varied. No excuse has been offered for placing just one theory in the lede and excluding others. It would violate WP:NPOV quite directly. Zero^talk 09:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, FCSundae, maybe we're getting close. Here are some modifications/additions I'd make to further clarify.

1. There has been a long-standing consensus presence of the English meanings of the name Jerusalem, in Hebrew (Yerushalem: Adobe of Peace) and in Arabic (Al-Quds [Al-Sharif]: The Holy Sancutary) in the lede of the article on Jerusalem.
2. The ancient pre-Hebrew name of Jerusalem, "Shalem", most likely signified the ancient god "Shalim". In its transition from the ancient Shalem/Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalem, the common meaning of Jerusalem became "Abode of Peace", based on a literal translation from the Hebrew name. Yeru is translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful"
3. Likewise the Arabic name "Al-Quds" which means "The Holy" took root in the Arabic language as meaning "The Holy Sanctuary".
4. Recently, two editors began proposing to remove 'Abode of Peace' from the lede because of the ancient pre-Hebrew meaning, saying it violates NPOV to only have the one meaning (Abode of Peace) that's in the lede now, and not the ancient one as well. MichealNetzer contends that the ancient meaning is expounded on in the Etymology section but is not of the same significance to the modern city and does not cause a POV conflict in its omission from the lede.
5. The two editors then proposed a compromise to also remove the Arabic meaning "The Holy Sanctuary". MichaelNetzer did not see this as a compromise and objects to removing either meaning of the names, saying they are both significant to the city's modern incarnation of demographics and cutlure. He further says that Jerusalem is a unique city with a rich character and history and that these meanings enrich the article and improve the recognition and identification of the city by appearing in the introduction.
6. MichaelNetzer has posted scholarly reliable sources to support the meanings 'Adobe of Peace' and 'The Holy Sancturay', but the two editors argue that the sources are not reliable for linguistic etymology. MichaelNetzer refutes this saying that the sources show scholarly recognition of the common meanings, and are not intended to support etymology, thus asserting their reliability for use as such in the lede.
7. "The main point of disagreement arose when two editors tried to remove a long-standing consensus presence of 'Abode of Peace' from the article's introduction. They agree to include these meanings in Etymology section, but MichaelNetzer says this will compromise the quality of the introduction to this unique city. He suggests the ancient etymology of the name belongs in the Etymology section while the most commonly known modern meanings best serve the article by remaining in the lede.

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Zero: I've found the most extensive scholarly source on the origin and evolution of the name Jerusalem. Professor Yaakov Klein, Bar-Ilan University in Tel-Aviv., Department of Hebrew Language and Tanach. "The Origin of the name Jerusalem and its meanings". It's in Hebrew but it seems to clarify things and covers more than I've seen anywhere. Google Translate garbles it up so we can use a good translation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In its transition from the ancient Shalem/Urušalimum to the biblical Yerushalem, the common meaning of Jerusalem became "Abode of Peace", based on a literal translation from the Hebrew name. Yeru is translated as "to lay a foundation (as for an abode)" and "shalem" as "peaceful"

If this were true, which it isn't, then it would be impossible to explain why the mysterious Yerushalem generated over a dozen different etymologies from late Biblical times through to Rabbinical midrash. It would be impossible to explain why 'Yeru-shalem' took on the form 'Yeru-shalayim which rather than assimilating 'shalem' to 'shalom', actually shifts the connotative nuance away from 'shalom', for 'shalay-im' has the aspect of a dual, implying two things, not a singular 'peace'.etc.etc. Michael has no evidence for the various elements of his imagined 'shift'. His thinking is developing, but it is always a matter of WP:OR, trying to figure out possible explanations for problems everyone else can see in his hypotheses, instead of simply following best practice, i.e., the consensus of sources.(b) as to the 'consensus' for keeping this in the lead, most editors have not the foggiest notion of what etymologies, and the historical shifts in language, meaning, etc., involve. That a misleading passage was retained speaks for nescience of the relevant issues involved as much as for some hypothetical 'consensus', which turns out to be a tacit consensus by the uninformed in a coalition of those who don't notice things. Finally, the lead as it stands is contradicted by the Etymology section, which leads should not do. Leads summarize the sections, and to put 'abode of peace' only to have the reader find out that it meant no such thing etymologically, and that this is just one of a baker's dozen of rough guesses, is improper, and not encyclopedic. To the contrary it is incredibly clunky, or clumsy. Whatever Klein says, the source you require is one by a historical linguist affirming that 'abode of peace' is, in English, 'the common meaning of Jerusalem' throughout the ages.Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The article of Yaakov Klein cited by MichaelNetzer doesn't have anything not appearing in English sources, but seems to be a fair summary. (Incidentally, Google Translate scrambles it because it sees the text in reverse order; it seems very hard to work around this.) The article recounts the various ancient names, supports the derivation from the name of the god Shalim (noting correctly that it can't be proved). Then it describes how the Midrash introduced the idea that it meant "city of peace" or "foundation of peace" and how this became popular. Zero^talk 15:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Efforts toward a possible resolution

Okay. I think I understand better the issues here. It actually seems to me that there are some significant points of agreement, which may point to some possible ways to resolve this dispute. The editors seem to agree, first, that the ancient name of Jerusalem (Urušalimum) was probably derived from the name of the god Shalim, and second, that the "Abode of Peace" interpretation of Yerushalem is, at the least, popular. It therefore seems to me that one way to go would be to find a good, neutral way to mention both of those facts in the lead. I see that a somewhat similar attempt, above, did not meet with consensus, possibly due to the dispute over giving the derivation of Urušalimum as the derivation of Yerushalem. Michael, if the lead contained something like "ancient name Urušalimum, probably after the god Shalim," but did not say that Yerushalem is related to the god Shalim (and did say that "Abode of Peace" is a current common translation of Yerushalem), would that work for you? How does it sound for the other editors? Does it seem like something of this nature could be feasible? FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason a similar suggestion wasn't agreed to before has nothing to do with connecting between Urušalimum and Yerushalem, which is well established in Etymology. The reason was because this ancient meaning is no longer relevant to the city, as the Hebrew and Arabic names are, and has not been relevant for nearly 3 millennia. Bringing it into the lead next to the current meanings gives the impression that there is "Shalim" significance to the city today, just like the Hebrew and Arabic that are mentioned. This is bad encyclopedic form as there is no NPOV violation in the lede as it is. It is a perfect POV representation for what Jerusalem means relative to its two predominant cultures. The entire push to change the lede is misguided and entirely ignores a well balanced consensus on what the lede should include. Nishidani and Zero's focus on historical etymology alone to justify the change never once addressed this point or even showed they've understood it.

It does not seem correct to seek a compromise that brings in an ancient meaning that has no relevance to the modern Jerusalem, and give it undue weight, on the grounds that it's part of the name's history and etymology. This is precisely the reason we have an etymology section which already covers everything they say. Nishidani and Zero ignore this distinction, never once show they've given it consideration, and make a misguided push to change a perfectly balanced lede, on grounds that are irrelevant to what should be in it. That said, I tried to see how it would look with the addition you suggest:

Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n , Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym, "Abode of Peace"; Arabic: القُدس , al-Quds [al-Sharif], "The Holy Sanctuary"; Ancient Urušalimum, "Foundation of Shalim") is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.

To me, it looks somewhat ridiculous and entirely out of context. It should be clear to anyone that the ancient name is out of place here and gives it undue weight as if there is a current "Shalim" culture or significance next to the modern Hebrew and Arabic ones. I don't know what else to say in order to stress how wrong this is from the standpoint of an encyclopedia. At this point, I remain strongly opposed to it. Maybe if Nishidani and Zero would show a sign of considering why consensus apparently decided on the way it is presently, instead of thinking they know better than everyone else about an issue they don't even seem to grasp. Maybe if they show they've considered what I've been saying and try to respond to it, instead of ignoring what I say entirely and only respond about etymology, then we can find a way to discuss the actual issue with a mutually respectful attitude, and arrive at a common understanding. I'm only asking for basic consideration and AGF towards the point I'm making, that would allow us to try to solve the dispute. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yerushalayim does not mean 'abode of peace' in any Hebrew dictionary I have consulted. It means Jerusalem.

Michael has never shown that 'abode of peace', one of a dozen etymologies, reflects the most common folk etymological explanation of Yerushalayim. Google hits are available to anyone. I've done several variations. No result backs his hypothesis.

Michael's premise is that how we gloss 'Yerushalayim' is subject to a condition: the choice of gloss must show a relevance of meaning to the current political situation of the city.(WP:RECENTISM) I.e. political considerations avowedly influence his choice of 'translation'. This flies in the face of WP:NPOV, as well as flying in the fact of the historical and philological facts which contradict everything he has stated here.

Michael argued his point, and it ended in a 3/1 majority in favour of a change. All three in the majority suggested compromises, not of which is acceptable to Michael. He still won't accept any compromise. Like the Bolsheviks (see the etymology of that word, and that of Menshevik), he wants to call his view a majority when the vote shows he is in a minority. This has been one vast pointless exercise, because Michael won't consider any alternative to his own.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a linguistic thesis on the articles it writes. An encyclopedia is a compilation of the sum relevant knowledge on any subject. Nishidani seems incapable of understanding something so basic that appears to be outside of the narrow discipline he bases his argument on.

I posted 14 sources, 5 by scholarly publishers, and there are countless more, that affirm 'Abode of Peace' as the most recognized meaning of Jerusalem. But that's not enough for Nishidani who disqualifies them as if they don't even exist, and dares say here that there are no sources to support the meaning. This is an extreme and outrageous denial of evidence and a disingenuous way to make a case.

I never once said the word "political" nor inferred it. I repeatedly referred to the current cultures and peoples presiding over the city, and how these two meanings reflect its recognition. Nishidani misrepresents what I say and boldly lies about it, in order to further confuse the issue and avoid responding to my point.

I've tried exhaustively to explain all this while ignoring most of Nishidani's abrasive tone, but have found no such reciprocal consideration. I don't believe his attitude is exemplary of WP guidelines for collaboration. I don't know what more I can say so Nishidani might reconsider, and at least discuss the actual point I make respectfully. There has not yet been a plausible reason given for making a change in the page. No compromise is needed because the push to remove the meanings is not sound, nor based on the relevant reason for their being there. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 14 sources were analysed twice, once comprehensively, and shown to either fail WP:RS (11) or, when scholarly, irrelevant in two cases, and not relevant because made by a Latin scholar mechanically repeating in a gloss to a 4th century Latin text one of many folk etymologies as though it were the meaning of Yerushalayim, which all scholarly semitic expert sources deny. You ignore my repeated reminders of the fallacies of that 'evidence'.

You twice, see the page, indicated that the folk meme you are attached to is the best one because it best reflects the current political situation of the city. That admission itself cannot be wikilawyered to mean anything other than that you are pushing a political edit into a phrasing that must represent the facts, not a 'factoid' partial to one party, i.e. yourself.

I am not 'abrasive' (appreciate this new addition to the numerous descriptors you invent to caricature my insistence on quality sourcing, precise erudite information). I am persistent and have like others been etraordinarily generous in reviewing minutely your endless repetitive rehearsals of an argument poorly justified by inferior or distractive claims about sourcing. I might add that saying my approach consists of 'boldily lying' is a personal attack on my bona fides that violates WP:AGF. I never act on personal attacks, because it is a waste of admins' time, and the evidence only tells against the persons who make them. You appeal to AGF when it suits you ('I'm only asking for basic consideration and AGF towards the point I'm making, '), but violate the selfsame policy when responding to others.

By the same token, persistence in kicking a horse dead long after the vet and coroner have declared it to be in an advanced state of decomposition is not collaborative. It might equally be read, however 'courteous' the tone, as an aggressive, exhausting technique of attrition (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

Note once more that you do not reply to a query where I asked you to adduce evidence for your assertion that 'abode of peace' is the most popular interpretation of Yerushalayim.

Three editors proposed a compromise, which they aren't obliged to offer, you refuse to compromise.

Being a majority of one against three, you insist that the questionable disinformation on the page cannot and must not be altered. Wiki works by consensus, and the consensus is as it ended on the talk page. You cannot exercise vetoes over a majority determination. To try to block a rational edit in this manner constitutes in my view a clear example of obstructive POV editing. Arguing further is pointless, because you are just repeating your personal views against both the relevant scholarly literature, and misinterpreting even those third-rate sources you bring along, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, not only by myself. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nishidani, you asked for sources and I brought academic sources. You dismiss them but you are wrong. The sources clearly prove academic recognition for 'Abode of Peace' as the popular meaning of Jerusalem. I'd also point you to Stephen Binz who is the academic source cited for "Foundation of Shalem" in the article's Etymology. In the next sentence he writes: "The popular meaning of Jerusalem, "the city of peace" comes from the Hebrew word "Shalom", meaning peace, harmony and wholeness." Additional academic sources cite both "city of peace" and "abode of peace" together, while others clearly indicate Jerusalem means 'Abode of Peace'. These sources cannot be dismissed. They are not dictionary definitions, but rather popular meanings recognized by academic scholars worldwide. Why is a Latin linguist any less competent to cite this popular meaning of a Hebrew name than an English one? What you say to dismiss these sources is inconsistent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the lede is not meant to be an etymology. But even based on linguistic sources, your argument fails by standards of academic scholars.
• Of the two times you said I referred to politics in the discussion, the first one had nothing to do with this subject. It was about the Sunni political gloss of dār al-salām before we began discussing the Hebrew. It was a whimsical answer to your whimsical astonishment over it, if you remember: "If this is devastating to you, then please register a complaint with Sunni politics that glossed the more ancient Hebrew, without any backing in the Qur'an or Hadith."' You then proceeded to try to drag the discussion into politics and insinuated that this was my motive for a total of Five times in your responses. I then replied once about there not being a Christian political presence in Jerusalem, and you jumped on that as if to prove my motives are political. I can understand how you'd see that but it was your insistence on dragging me into a political issue that needed a response. I never mentioned the word again, but you continued to hammer it into the discussion several more times. You tried to bring it into this discussion again now, but I will not be dragged into it. I have not made such an argument. Anyone reading our exchanges can see that. On the other hand, I used the word "cultur[al]" a total of Four times in the previous discussion and a total of TEN times here, on which to base my case for the relevance of using the Arabic and Hebrew meanings. If I was making a political argument, I would not insist on keeping both the Arabic and Hebrew because there is little common political grounds between the cultures. The meanings in Arabic and Hebrew are in the lead strictly based on the cultural significance of the city in modern history. You may not have meant to do this intentionally, but you have seriously misrepresented me. You've distorted the issue to say I'm making a case that I am not. If you're not aware of it, you should be. The record of these discussions speaks for itself. Your efforts to drag us into a political issue are misleading, and please forgive me for saying so, but it is a deceptive tactic that doesn't work.
• Perhaps you don't realize it, but you have been very abrasive, and if you'll forgive me again for saying it, you've been hostile, somewhat pretentious, condescending, inconsiderate and repeatedly misrepresenting what I say. Again, maybe you didn't intend to do all this but that's how it comes off. Anyone reading these discussions can feel the contempt in your tone and see the insults you hurled. I've tried to be more than patient but you need to be made aware of what you're doing. That's why I answered you harshly. But look back on our exchanges and try to understand that I've withstood more than any fair share of derision from you throughout, and have refrained from addressing you in the same way. I admit it's not easy.
• I've responded to everything you've said. I've shown that I've taken it all into consideration. I don't see you trying to do the same. All your responses are about the same thing, as if you are writing a dictionary or a linguistic thesis. But even at that, your responses are amazingly incorrect and ignore a prevalent reality in the academic world. I'd like you to try to respond to that aspect. Why do you insist on turning the lede into a dictionary entry when that's what Wikipedia is not? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As there is no consensus to give both meanings in the lede, it really looks to me like the best option is to move the whole thing to the etymology section. Michael, I do understand your concerns that this will remove valuable information from the lede. I would only echo FormerIP, above, in noting that having all the information on a city's name in a separate section seems to be fairly normal practice (see Hong Kong, Phnom Penh, Helsinki, etc.). Moving it down would make the article in line with a common practice on Wikipedia, and would therefore not seem to me to be necessarily a statement on whether any of these meanings is primary. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the compromises we have already offered, and I think reasonable. The lead should not contain controversial elements as facts. I have provided numerous examples where in dealing with both Israeli cities, and their counterparts in the Middle East, there is no etymology or 'meaning' assigned in the lead,and therefore to relegate this to the etymology section would also elide the anomaly here, and make the Jerusalem article conform to the general model not only of city articles in this area, but in articles on cities generally. Thanking all for their added input here.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, FCSundae. However...

1. You are mistaken about the consensus. There already exists a longstanding community consensus on both meanings in the lede as they have been there for quite some time. A new consensus is needed to remove them. The two editors seeking their removal cannot override the community - and they have established no such WP:Consensus.
2. This does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not based on majority voting either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to reach a solution that addresses as far as possible all legitimate concerns raised by interested editors.
3. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
4. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
5. The argument for removing the meanings is based on linguistic etymology and dictionary. This violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
6. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.
7. Both editors refuse to recognize reliable academic sources that support the inclusion of the meanings.
8. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
9. The editors have not addressed these guidelines, making the quality of their argument flawed for achieving consensus.
10. One editor has engaged in personal remarks and uncivil accusations, and blatant distortions of my position, instead of responding to these core issues, further compromising the quality of their argument for consensus.
11. It is prudent for you, in trying to mediate the dispute, to take all concerns into consideration. Instead, you suggest a one sided compromise. They are wrongly demanding removal of well sourced material from the lede, in violation of the above WP guidelines - and you are mediating a so-called compromise, proposing the material be removed as they wish. It's somewhat astonishing.
12. If these issues are not considered as they should be to achieve a consensus, and if no other editor/admin steps in to address them, then I will consider this dispute resolution effort a failure and will seek a solution at a higher hierarchy for arbitration.

I thank you again for your effort. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And if, I'm being as neutral as possible, 3 editors can see a large problem of misleading and hitherto unsourced information in just two words in the lead, you are saying, Michael, that because it has lain their unnoticed for donkey's ages, it cannot be touched without your consent? Over 750 people who have this page bookmarked, have not cared either way and left it to us 4. Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office! Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The meanings are affirmed by scholarly institutes and are not misleading. I know you care, and I think I do also, but I wouldn't presume that everyone else, or the 750 watchers, don't care.

You may not believe, Nishidani, that I share your anguish over holy writ run amok in pursuit of wealth and power, while leading large populaces into wars, ignorance and oppression. It is a grave travesty of purpose and needs to be resisted with all our might. But holy writ has also become intertwined into our culture. It has contributed to our evolution on levels that can't always be measured by the naked history.

Our job here is to represent the facts about our world, without prejudice against holy or unholy writ or deed. Our highest academic institutes recognize this aspect of history and culture, and have affirmed the portions of it that are relevant to our sum knowledge, and to this encyclopedia for our purposes. 'Shalim', by measure of prejudice, is also holy writ and could be contested. But we rise above our prejudice to bring history and current affairs into light, based on recognition by academic decree. Jerusalem was founded on holy writ from its start. The mentions in the lead, relative to modern Jerusalem are justified in that academia recognizes the popularity of these meanings with no reserve. Their presence in the lede enhances recognition and knowledge of the city. I'd suggest we try to let this lay for a while and allow it to rest in the realm of consideration, so maybe we can hopefully approach it a little more peaceably.

You and I, two old geezers with stubborn streaks that have produced way too many words on these pages, would benefit from a cup of tea and talk, and come to know that we perhaps don't differ so much on the essences. I want you to know that I'm very sorry for the tension and apologize if I've said anything that's been out of line. But I can't let this go without the insistence and clarification that needs to be made. You continue to amaze me with eloquence and passion that I've not seen often. A red carpet awaits should you ever come this way. Peace. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm stubborn - from the beginning I've ventured several compromise solution - I'm a sticker for details and highquality RS, that's all. And, whatever the impression I give, I write and work in here with equanimity, and am relatively immune to 'tension'. If I were tense, in the sorts of social and political situations I had to live in over many decades, I'd be long dead. So no need to apologize. You're familiar with pilpul. I with Tibetan scholastic debates, and Platonic modes of argument. In all three cases, one argues intensively (not intensely) to resolve a problem. It has nothing to do with personal animosities, and I'm sorry you have read my engagement this way. Nothing you've said has worried me personally.

I'm a pagan, so I have no horse in the race. I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits. I'm only interested in individual life-stories. I'm not eloquent, and feel ashamed at what the exigencies of rapid editing and discussion in this medium do to my former style. That said,

I think this is all a tempest in a teapot, like most things we have to cavil over. There are many folk etymologies for Jerusalem that are popular, and you have no evidence to show that the one for which you have a predeliction is more popular than any other, or privileged in Jewish lore. If you take Christian tradition 'vision of peace' appears to be favoured. In Jewish religious circles, you'll probably have several preferences depending on specific rabbinical lineage, so that one school will delight in the midrash on Gen.22:12 that tells of the dispute between Abraham's preference for 'Yir'eh' (see) and Shem's for 'shalem', in which God, not wishing to favour either side, drew up the compromise of 'Yir'eh+shalem ', so that Abraham called the name of that place 'YHWH will provide/see'. Others, will prefer 'foundation of peace' or 'vision of peace' etc.etc.etc.

The 'current situation' which you mention relates to a bitterly contested, and divided city. You wish 'abode of peace' to gloss it, which can sound like an admonition to the parties, or an assertion of an untruth, or even, to some ears on the other side, as a defiantly counter-factual glozing over tensions, in that the prevailing power is calling 'the Holy' city an 'Abode of Peace' when a significant minority don't experience it that way, etc.etc. The only sensible solution is, given the lack of reliably substantiation and strong evidence for the contentious meanings, is to relegate this to Etymology, as the majority if not all wiki articles on cities appear to do. To accept a solution along these lines is not to to lose the argument. In my personal view or POV one should best write 'Foundation of Shalem?' (note the interrogative mark), but I freely renounce that best RS solution. I only expect some movement from you, rather than a stolid defence of leaving the text as it is, on whatever grounds, since it is misleading and probably not neutral. We could write a wonderful etymology meaning section there and on related pages where all this is thrashed out for the curious, instead of bickering on this. Regards (ps. despite your claims, you are still relatively a youngster in my book, despite attempts to disguise the fact with an impressively Moseic beard.: In lieu of RS to the contrary, I'm the wheezing geezer in this joint:))Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nice to see the dialogue getting friendlier. :) I'd have no problem with mentioning the popular meaning, even in the lead sentence, if it's marked as such ("often/popularly translated/interpreted as 'abode of peace'"), but wouldn't like the lead sentence to create the appearance it's the current status of philological research. [3]. (The OED has "interpreted as 'possession of peace'".) --JN466 10:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  The 1989 version of the O.E.D., which is the only one I have unfortunately, provides no etymology or meaning for Jerusalem (see vol.VIII p.219, col.1), unlike for most words.

  The source you cite, which I had mentioned earlier, opens: In Hebrew Scripture the very name Jerusalem indicates that the city was built as a "foundation (for the deity)Salem," who can be identified with Shalmon or Shulmanu ..In view of the theophoric character of the name Jerusalem. . .'

  This gives the etymology as the real meaning, and scholarship finds no problem in saying what the consensus tends to accept as the meaning of the toponym.

  After remarking how the theophoric component was equated with shalom 'by means of a popular etymology to generate the proverbial notion of a 'City of Peace' (not 'Abode of Peace' which is a distinct idea), it concludes overpage:

  'Alas, this popular etymology, which, indeed, has clearly discernible roots already in the Hebrew Scriptures, cannot be considered to have either a philological, or a historical basis. In actual history Jerusalem seldom ceased being a city of bloodshed and war'p.496

  Meaning the popular etymology is registered only to challenge its relevance to the actual historical meaning and the situation, current or historical, of the city of Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• One has 'abode of peace'. One could put 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), equally succinct and no impression would be thereby created 'of the current status of philological research', while the impression created that the status of one popular belief now functions as the true meaning would be eliminated. Is there any precedent for preferring one of many false, but popular folksy meanings to the probable meaning accepted by the community of scholars?Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw you'd referred to that chapter by Shemaryahu Talmon before on the talk page. He seems a good source to me. The OED quote is from a 1987 version of the Shorter OED, which has, in full:

  • In A.V. Jerusalem, Vulg. (O.T.) Jerusalem, (N.T.) Hierusalem, the latter repr. a Hellenized form with initial aspirate and consequent assim. to ἰερὀς holy, the former deriving from Gr. Ιερουσαλἠμ, which prob. approximates to the earlier pronunc. Yerúshálém of the Heb. name (interpreted as 'possession of peace').

  I note that the SOED says "interpreted as"; it doesn't provide an etymology to that effect. So you could say 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace'", or something of that ilk. --JN466 11:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd be fine with that. It is indeed one of the 'shalom offerings' I made in the Jerusalem page thread, as a decent compromise (that doesn't compromise wiki's aspirations for reliability). But, intuiting some might object to the association of the city with a pagan deity, I then suggested just dropping as per wiki city articles normatively any reference to meaning or etymology in the lead. I'm inclined to think this latter is the best solution, but the earlier compromise satisfies all parties.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

    Sounds good to me. --JN466 12:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

My previous concern for introducing 'Foundation of Shalem' in the lede was only in the way it would appear within the Hebrew and Arabic definitions in the first sentence. One way around it is to remove the meanings from the first sentence and introduce them as part of the text flow. Here's a proposal:

Jerusalem (Template:Lang-he-n , Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym; Arabic: القُدس , al-Quds) is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.^[iii] The ancient name means 'Foundation of Shalem'(?), often interpreted as 'abode of peace', while in Arabic, al-Quds [al-Sharif] means "The Holy Sanctuary". If the area and population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest city in both population and area, with a population of 763,800 residents over an area of 125.1 km² (48.3 sq mi).^[iv] Located in the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the boundaries of the Old City.

Sources are already given in Etymology. If this works, or inspires a better idea, we're likely getting close to a solution. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

'Ancient name'? Yeru-salem was its ancient name, and Jerusalem is its modern name in Western languages. Its phonemic shape has scarcely altered over 4 millenia.

Transform the glosses into an independent sentence, and you get a lead summary sentence, which explodes the compactness of a gloss, and therefore must synthesize the etymology section in a line. Thus the detached sentence will begin to read something (at a minimum) like this.

'Originally denoting perhaps Foundation of Shalem, the name Jerusalem was later interpreted variously to mean 'vision', or 'abode' or 'foundation' of peace. Its Arabic name means 'the holy (sanctuary').

'Abode of peace' is not (google hits) anywhere near the commonest or most popular name. In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page.

I prefer (a) to leave it out of the lead (b) if forced to chose, then a gloss after Yerushalem/Yerushalayim as as Jayen suggests. (c) If, as Michael now prefers, a separate sentence, then it takes the form of a lead summmary statement, and must be expanded along the lines I just suggested. Perhaps rather than clinching a shaky personal deal here between aged combatants, we should wait and get all participants to put in here? Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

With so many prejudices that affect your editing, it's a wonder that you were even allowed to register here, let alone touch an article with a keypad.

"I dislike or rather have deep suspicions about feelings of nationalism, esp. collective, that rise above the love of a landscape, food, and language. These are the prejudices I bring to edits. I'm only interested in individual life-stories."

Wikipedia is not to be shaped by such a pretentious ideology that would erase most knowledge of a civilization entrenched in collective nationalism. That you admit your disdain motivates your editing is outrageous. There are way too many things we don't like in this life that we need to accept as facts to contend with here. You are expected to keep your prejudices out of the editing process yet you flamboyantly declare yourself unable and unfit to do so.

It is now painfully obvious why you display such disregard for Wikipedia guidelines and choose to rely on "In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page." If this is the level of competence you base your editing on, then any discussion with you now proves itself useless. Add to that your disdain for "holy writ" as explaining why you reject scholarly opinion on it, and we have an editor so motivated by their personal biases that they should be forbidden to even open an editing box in Wikipedia.

As things stand now, your entire input into this dispute, including your initial push to remove the meanings from the lead, are to be dismissed as the rantings of an editor who should be disqualified from opining on this subject altogether. I am disregarding this entire fiasco as a waste of our precious time. Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition. It is time you begin understanding that this encyclopedia is about sum knowledge, including the things you personally disdain, which you should learn to keep outside of the work being done here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Remarkable.'sordid prejudices, disdain, rantings', because I said what Jewish past masters from Eric Hobsbawm, Elie Kedourie, Ernest Gellner, Hans Kohn, Léon Poliakov and a dozen others taught me as a youth about the way nationalism was inextricably bound up with the lethal consequence of the Holocaust?, and a neutral eye in here, who has never crossed my path on wikipedia reading my comments, took them (percipiently but naturally, to be friendly!!!! You are incapable of understanding the tone of any of my remarks, and conjure up a monster out of a minor note in what was an amicable response to your friendly overture. Delicacy becomes 'ranting', careful weighing of words 'disregard for policy', . . Your response is so, well, 'astonishing', out of left field as the yanks say, or off-point, it spins so bizarrely a few untroubled words, that I won't worry you with an answer. I'll just bold your remark.'Any attempt to change the lede based on your sordid prejudices will be met with the staunchest opposition.- a funny way to characterize yourself. I arrived at a compromise with Onceinawhile and Zero over this defective text. In dissent you brought it to this forum where I think third parties have suggested two compromises both of which I accepted. Result? A threat to revert me relentlessly if I touch the lead you alone want, since I am a person unfit to edit wikipedia. Fine. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I made what seems like a reasonable proposal based on the discussion between JN466 and yourself. I explained why it is out of context to introduce "Foundation of Shalem" within the Hebrew and Arabic definitions in the first sentence.
2. You reject it and drag us into another effort to bring the Etymolgy section into the lead, disregarding the clear WP policy on encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns.
3. Several of your recent statements in which you admit you are allowing your ideological prejudices to dictate your editing, show why this entire dispute is baseless. You ignore policy for content and collaborative work, distort arguments and positions, and engage in manipulative contentions, all apparently meant to apply your prejudices to an otherwise neutral encyclopedia of sum knowledge that has no room for your exclusionary devices.
4. Enough is enough. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Having submitted this dispute resolution request, it seems the discussion reveals no plausible grounds for the dispute, nor for the editor's position who initiated the proposal to remove well sourced content from the lede of the article Jerusalem, based on their professed prejudices affecting their editing. For my considerations in making the submission, the request can be closed unless other editors have additional comments. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are no plausible grounds for the dispute, does that mean you will not be editing the relevant part of the lead? --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The lede is fine as it is until a proposal is made for changing it based on WP guidelines. If an editor changes the lede, based on arguments made here and in the talk page, motivated by prejudices against nationalism ("These are the prejudices I bring to edits."), lack of knowledge of facts ("In fact the phrase was alien to my ear, until my eye caught it some years ago on this page") and bias towards "holy writ" ("Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office!"), in order to supersede WP policy and scholarly sources that support the lede as it is, then I will revert it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer has severely misunderstood Nishidani's above comments ("prejudices I bring to edits"). Nishidani is clearly saying that he has no prejudices other than a desire to see WP:NPOV prevail. It would be helpful to focus discussion on what problem is to be resolved, and what reliable sources say about the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I commend your ability to overlook Nishidani's blatant remarks that reveal severe prejudices. How you can interpret these statements as NPOV is beyond me. How you see "a desire to see WP:NPOV" without some ingenious WP:OR confounds even more.

• Nishidani disapproves of nationalism and admits this affects his editing in favor of "personal stories", yet has made no such issues about other nationalisms relative to 'Shalim' and 'Al-Quds'.
• Nishidani had no prior knowledge of 'abode of peace' and thus deems this lack of information as the basis for dismissing scholarly sources that have referenced it as the meaning of Jerusalem for more than 100 years up to the present. He has miraculous knowledge of most everything else about the name yet this very prominent instance has somehow slipped beneath his radar.
• Nishidani betrays his derision for this particular "holy writ" as "infallibility associated with some office!" while making no such allusions to holy writs of 'Shalim' or 'Al-Quds'.
• I'm sorry, but I fail to see any neutrality here.

I have been dragged through an enormous waste of time arguing Nishidani's responses in good faith without replying in kind to his personal remarks, distortions of what I've said, and inexplicable disregard for academic sources I posted. I have focused discussion on the problem and what reliable sources say. I have made my arguments for why the lede is worded this way but have never received a reasonable response from Nishidani that addressed the concerns I raise. I believe in light of his recent confessions, it is entirely evident, and reasonable to conclude, that Nishidani has engaged in a procedure intended to impose his personal dislike for what the content in question represents. I would be more than happy to discuss this amicably should Nishidani desist from these prejudiced practices. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but there is pretty substantial agreement on the edit that Mr Netzer says he intends to revert. That is unacceptable. One editor cannot hold an article hostage. There isnt a dispute here, there is a consensus. And if an editor wants to edit war against that consensus, well, he can try doing that. I wish him the best of luck in doing so. nableezy - 05:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy guidelines indicate a failure to achieve consensus so far, as I've shown above. But thank you for the well whishes, Mr. Nableezy. I do hope we don't get into another war. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, unsurprisingly, you think you have the stronger argument, and everybody else is wrong. You can keep thinking that, but it wont fly. nableezy - 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I have a stronger argument and you are wrong. Thanks for helping me say that. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this dispute without saying a word up till now. I was glad it was slowly appearing to make progress until Michael Netzer posted his egregious personal attack above at 16:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Michael Netzer, did you read the edit notice, displayed in bold at the top of this screen, "This page is not the place to flame other users."? In my opinion, you should apologise to Nishidani, and withdraw your attack. --NSH001 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC) note: I will be out and unable to respond for most of the rest of today. -- NSH

Your opinion and suggestion are very interesting, NSH, but you might have checked the history of this discussion, especially the talk page that preceded it, to see that what I said was relatively tame compared to what's been hurled at me by Nishidani. He never once thought there was a need to apologize and I never asked for it. But in this diff I did say I was sorry about the general tone of the discussion, in an effort to try to bridge the gap between us. His answer was "So no need to apologize. You're familiar with pilpul. I with Tibetan scholastic debates, and Platonic modes of argument. In all three cases, one argues intensively (not intensely) to resolve a problem. It has nothing to do with personal animosities, and I'm sorry you have read my engagement this way. Nothing you've said has worried me personally." So later when a proposal made here was passionately dismissed by Nishidani and he then made his remark about his prejudice, I felt a need to explain why this his attitude is compromising the effort to come to an agreement. I admit I did it harshly but it wasn't a personal attack as you say. It's how we appear to best get our points across to each other. Seeing how we both are big boys and able to take care of ourselves, it seems that your stepping in with this out-of-context observation, seeming to have little understanding of what preceded it... well, it's a little out of line and somewhat useless, I'm sorry to say. But I appreciate your concern nonetheless. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

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

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a dispute about whether the term "military support" (of Pakistan to the Taliban from 1995-2001) should be included in the relevant lead sentence. Anyone please take a look at below sources and tell us your opinion whether you think

• 1) Pakistan is being accused of "military support" in these sources, and if so
• 2) it is due or undue to mention that in the lead sentence ("From 1995-2001, Pakistan is widely alleged by the international community to have provided [military] support to the Taliban in its rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces, though Pakistan vigorously denies it.")

Sources

---

Encyclopedia

• "Although it is officially denied, there is widespread agreement that the Taliban gained crucial early support from the Pakistani army and intelligence services, especially in helping make the Taliban a highly effective military force." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
• "The Taliban emerged as a significant force in Afghanistan in 1994 ... which marked the beginning of a long-term alliance between the group and Pakistani security forces." Columbia Encyclopedia

United Nations

• "The [UN security council] resolution imposes an arms embargo against the Taliban, including foreign military assistance that UN officials say comes mainly from Pakistan."[4]
• "United Nations officials say that the Taliban gets their strongest sustained support from Pakistan."[5]
• "In a statement on 22 October, the Security Council also expressed deep distress over reports of involvement in the fighting, on the Taliban side, of thousands of non-Afghan nationals." [6]
• "Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism. In November 2000 the U.N. secretary-general implicitly accused Pakistan of providing such support."[7]

Human Rights Watch

• "Of all the foreign powers involved in efforts to sustain and manipulate the ongoing fighting [in Afghanistan], Pakistan is distinguished both by the sweep of its objectives and the scale of its efforts, which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and ... directly providing combat support."[8]
• "Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning major Taliban military operations. The extent of this support has attracted widespread international criticism."[9]

Academia

• ”Pakistan became directly involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban in the 1990s …” (Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival (2006 1st ed.). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., London New York. p. 352.)
• ” Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasirullah Babur discovered and empowered a group of former Mujahideen from the Kandahar area as Pakistan’s new strategic card in the Afghan conflict. … In the late 1990s, Pakistan continued to support the Taliban regime in its war against the Northern Alliance”[10]
• "The Taliban were made into an effective political and military unit by the Pakistan government, the ISI and other parts of the Pakistan government. Would the Taliban have been able to come to power without Pakistan's help? Of course the Taliban could never have come to power without the help of Pakistan."[11]
• "Throughout 1995, the collaboration between ISI and the Taliban increased, and it changed character. It became more and more of a direct military alliance. ... They received guns; they received money; they received fuel; they received infrastructure support. They also, we know, had direct on-the-ground support from undercover Pakistani officers in civilian clothes who would participate in particular military battles. ... They were an asset of the ISI. I think it's impossible to understand the Taliban's military triumph in Afghanistan, culminating in their takeover of Kabul in 1996, without understanding that they were a proxy force, a client of the Pakistan army, and benefited from all of the materiel support that the Pakistan army could provide them ..."[12]
• "The ISI was trying to create a puppet state in Afghanistan? Yes. And they created the Taliban in order to facilitate that? That's right. ... You had an unholy alliance combining ISI, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But then [and] right up until 9/11, this unholy alliance was dominated, directed, guided mostly by ISI in Pakistan."[13]

Media (New York Times, Washington Times, etc.)

• "Pakistan's military backs Afghanistan's Taliban rulers."[14]
• "Pakistani military advisers, were spearheading a merciless Taliban offensive against moderate Muslim communities in Northern Afghanistan."[15]
• "The level of support reaching Massoud's men is a fraction of that reaching the Taliban from Islamabad."[16]

International Governments

• "Tehran accused Pakistan of sending its air force to bomb the city in support of the Taliban's advance and said Iran was holding Pakistan responsible for what it termed war crimes at Bamiyan."[17]
• Head of European Parliament: “ …speak firmly to the Pakistani authorities. … I will solemnly ask Pakistan to cease supporting a [Taliban] regime which because of its fanatical and obscure views is setting its fate against international society.”[18]
• ”Russia today accused Pakistan of directly participating in the Taliban military offensive in northern Afghanistan close to the borders of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and warned that Moscow reserves the right to take any action to ensure the security of its allies in Central Asia. A spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Valery Nesterushkin accused Pakistan of planning the Taliban "military expansion" in the north of Afghanistan and directly participating in the Taliban military operations and taking care of their logistics…. "Concrete facts, including large number of Pakistani servicemen taken prisoners by the units of northern alliance provide this evidence," Nesterushkin stressed.”[19]
• "U.S. documents released today clearly illustrate that the Taliban was directly funded, armed and advised by Islamabad itself. Obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the documents reflect U.S. apprehension about Islamabad's longstanding provision of direct aid and military support to the Taliban, including the use of Pakistani troops to train and fight alongside the Taliban inside Afghanistan." [20]
• "Administration officials told Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar during his recent visit to Washington that the White House had a "growing body of evidence" that Islamabad was in violation of U.N. sanctions because of its military aid to the Taliban."[21]
• French media archive video: "Pakistani army personnel captured by Massoud"[22]

---

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (talk · contribs)
• TParis (talk · contribs)
• JCAla (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

The issue was discussed on the Taliban talk page. There is neither a consensus to use the term "military support" nor a consensus to not use it.

• How do you think we can help?

You can help by considering above sources and then provide your position in response to the two questions posed above.

JCAla (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Taliban discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Clerk's note: Mediators/clerks here at DRN should take note of the special conduct limitations regarding this dispute (set out here by sysop Magog the Ogre), which extend to discussion of this dispute by the disputants here at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support the use of them having given military assistance, this is widely reported upon and there are sources from the academic press which discuss the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, the support has explicitly been characterized as "military support" in and by the reliable sources and it constitutes a majority position. Therefor it is verifiable and due to present the nature of the majority position correctly. There is no case for dropping a single term explicitly used by the reliable sources to characterize the nature of the support. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - if this is another attempt to jam through JCAla's point of view by getting more people to opine and say "support, the other side is wrong" - then it is poorly intentioned. This issue is quite resolvable if the parties simply discuss the issue without all the side tangents. While I recommend anybody interested post their opinion here and even come to Talk:Taliban, I remind all parties that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and adding more editors of one's own POV will help nothing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I was about to say, votes? I think User:Darkness Shines's "vote" was copied from the talk page and should be listed as a quotation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not "another attempt to jam through" anyone's point of view. This is simply an attempt to get other people to join the discussion on the very core question. People might be discouraged to join the discussion on Talk:Taliban because of the pure length and missing oversight. Positions are quite deadlocked on this very issue and there has already been a very long discussion. This being a content dispute resolution board, it seems the right place. I think I was able to pose the question in a fairly neutral way. A discussion and possible consensus can go either way. Thanks for assuming the good faith you asked us to assume. (Removed the "votes" formulation so it can't be misunderstood.) Any input on the topic from your, Magog, side or any other interested side on the disputed content is greatly appreciated (whether it is in support of the use of the term or in opposition). It is now up to wikipedia editors whether they want to see that term or not. JCAla (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This has an extensive discussion on Talk:Taliban and it would be tiring to start it all over again here while it can be WP:TLDR for editors here to read that. A related consensus is also present at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The consensus mentioned above by TopGun is not meaningful for this discussion. The discussion was about another time period (2001-today), the specific term "alliance" and the infobox. The current discussion is about 1995-2001 and the addition of one verified term to an already existing agreed-upon lead sentence. 1995-2001 is a period on which there are a lot of studies and the obvious (see sources) majority position is that Pakistan provided "military support" to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is very much relevant; editors are free to review the issues stated in the opening and closer's comments. The specific term 'alliance' in infobox and time period were 2 of its aspects. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication

• Augmentative and alternative communication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Two related issues

Two editors might suit some outside opinions with resolving two related issues. Firstly, there is a difference of opinion on the answer to the question of "Are the peer reviewed proceedings from academic conferences considered acceptable sources for wikipedia?" (Two pertinent facts may well be that a: both editors would like the article to go to FAC and have the required high-standard of sourcing and b: the conferences in question are often computer science ones that may be treated differently by some editors).

Secondly, there is a difference of opinion about a paragraph being included in a section of the article, when the content is surmised in the History section of the article. The paragraph in question is [23]

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Failedwizard (talk · contribs)
• Poule (talk · contribs)

There is a great deal of mutual respect between both editors, the conversation has been measured, sedate and reasonable on both sides thoughtout; however it certainly appears (to me anyway) that this is caused by deep differences in philosophy and I think both of us would welcome editors who might be able to offer some opinions.

This step was proposed in advance on the talk page, will post back to talk page now.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Augmentative_and_alternative_communication}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

The full conversation on both matters is at: Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies

• How do you think we can help?

It is my believe that the dispute is relatively technical in nature and if editors who felt experienced in that particular field where to give us their interpretation of wikipedia's policy on either or both of the issues then I think either or both of us would happily accept the consensus and return to working productively together.

Failedwizard (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Augmentative_and_alternative_communication discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

History of the United States public debt

• History of the United States public debt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Editing conflict. The first issue should be extremely simple -- is it more accurate to attribute the Federal Government's 2009 budget to Bush, or to state that it is a transition budget influenced by both Bush and Obama. I believe the latter is more accurate, because (for example) the stimulus was passed after Obama took office, as well as the omnibus spending bill. I edited the table to point this out, and my edit was promptly reverted as "POV motivated." I will freely state that I do have a conservative point of view. However, it remains a factual statement that the transition budget should be attributed to both Administrations.

The second issue is that the article includes what I believe to be POV information from the Obama Administration and the NYT, with no countervailing right-wing point of view. Well, if they want to have their lefty POV stuff that's fine, but they should be willing to admit that it is POV, label it as such, and be equally willing to balance it out with some right wing POV. Then we would have a balanced article that includes both sides.

However, when I tried to include some right wing POV, they simply reverted it, stating that it was POV. Apparently they think their POV is fine and mine is not.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• William Jockusch (talk · contribs)
• Achowat (talk · contribs)
• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes, I notified them both. Achowat and Lawrencekhoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 00:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=History of the United States public debt}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, I explained that a transitional budget is associated with both Administrations. This is perfectly consistent with the prior version of the article explaining its ostensible reasons for putting a transitional budget into one Administration. I also raised the issue of the lack of neutrality on the article's talk page. I notice there that I am not the first reader to have the same issue.

• How do you think we can help?

I don't know, I'm new here, but it seems just plain wrong that others are insisting on keeping a table that associates one President with transition budgets, even though the new Administration always makes changes.

William Jockusch (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the United States public debt discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

In the sense of full disclosure, my role in this 'dispute' was merely in the removal of unsourced POV opining from the page, here, and discussing the issues of WP:V and WP:NPOV on various talk pages. That being said, (and I wish these issues were dealt with on Talk Pages instead of here), could I inquire as to the usefulness of citing a 'President' and having these tables based on percentages done by Republican/Democratic presidents? It seems to me that not only is the flavor of the Oval Office poorly indicative of the Budget process (since Budgets originate in the House, not the Executive Branch) and just ripe for these variety of POV disputes. Why not simply state the year, the Congress that passed the budget (101st versus 102nd, etc) without worrying about Red and Blue or Carter/Reagan? -Achowat (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk's request to William Jockusch: As listing editor, please answer the questions in the "Resolving the dispute" section above. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this is an actionable dispute. The government's budget is listed under the fiscal year (even if it were the calendar year it wouldn't matter that much) so 81 is Carter, 93 Bush, 2001 Clinton, etc. Marking budgets as transitional appears to be an attempt to associate Obama with the 2009 budget. The "second problem" listed in the dispute lends credence to this theory. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was motivated by noticing that they were putting a transitional budget into one President's column, the 2009 case being a particularly crazy example. But what's wrong with that? Just as I was motivated by my point of view, others were motivated by theirs. Are you saying that merely because I felt Obama should be associated with a deficit that he was in fact associated with, I don't have a point? And yes, I'm a conservative. But if you look at the whole design of the table, it appears to be intended to make Republicans look bad. Part of the way it does that is by putting transitional budgets into one column. Then there are "averages" at the top, with big red and blue lines indicating the party, and the ones for the R Presidents are worse, which is accomplished by tricks like putting the 2009 budget into the R column. The mere fact that I am motivated to correct that distortion makes my correction revertable "POV material"? Well, why not get rid of the whole table then, as it also appears to be POV motivated, accomplishing its end with a combination of starting in 1970 and the trick at issue here? This noticeboard appears to be saying their POV motivated material is OK, but my POV motivated correction is not OK.William Jockusch (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick point of order here, Jockusch. The fact at issue is whether or not the budgets can be considered "transitional". Do you have outside references to support that they are? Sleddog116 (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

CBO estimates that the enactment of ARRA raised federal outlays by about $100 billion and reduced tax collections by about $90 billion through September 2009. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The House approved an $819 billion stimulus package on a near party-line vote yesterday http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012800196.html?hpid=topnews William Jockusch (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see where the dispute is. The only information that these sources provide is the actual numbers of the budget - not the fact that they are "transitional budgets" as you're trying to assert (except for the first source, which is a personal blog or student paper - generally not considered reliable under Wikipedia guidelines). None of these sources support the idea of attaching a budget to a specific President - as Achowat said, actionable budgets originate in the House, not the Oval Office. Regardless of the intent, however, the diff in question ([24]) is personal commentary. The objective of Wikipedia is not to provide a balance by filling articles with non-neutral statements on both sides; the objective is to present a neutral point of view throughout. The only way to do that, in this case, is to simply present the numbers and let them speak for themselves. Saying that something "clearly demonstrates the NYT partisan bias" (and similar statements - they were made by IP editors, so I'm not making accusations; merely pointing out rationales) is personal commentary - what is "clear" to one person may not be clear to someone else, and even if it were, no one on Wikipedia is qualified to make such judgments without reliable outside sources (though, in truth, I doubt you will find a credible, nonpartisan source that will accuse the NYT of political bias). Like I said; an article like this only needs to present the numbers, and let the numbers speak for themselves. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, so it is not our function (as Wikipedia editors) to actually analyze the numbers - we should instead either let the numbers speak for themselves or cite content from reliable sources that make such analyses. We do not provide them ourselves. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not part of the initial dispute, but This section seems to be rife with unsourced and inaccurate statements about the Presidents legislative role, almost as if the sole reason was to justify the addition of Presidential terms to the table. I would propose revamping the table seen there, removing the columns "US President", "Party" and both "House Control" and "Senate Control" and putting the numbers in purely by numbered Congress. Get rid of the red and blue, take the politics out of it. Keep it 100% factual and remove this contention. -Achowat (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things. First of all, Achowat's suggestion would work for me. Secondly, you are challenging my evidence for my assertion that the budget is transitional. But what is the evidence for the opposite view? And for that matter, if Widipedia should not present original research, then doesn't that apply to the averages at the top purporting to show that Republican presidents run up bigger deficits? Where are the sources for those figures? [Not the deficit figures; the averages by party of the President.] Those figures would themselves appear to be original research.William Jockusch (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Achowat, your section link doesn't work (hence the red), but your suggestion seems very sound. Jockush, I'm not not "challenging" anything, merely pointing out that your sources don't make any such claims, and the first source you provided is unreliable. Neither of the two reliable sources says anything about a "transitional budget" one way or the other. The budget is introduced in the House, not the White House. Don't make it a partisan thing. I agree with Achowat's suggestion; let's remove partisan politics from the tables and just let the numbers say what they will. If those numbers happen to make the Republicans/Democrats look worse than the other party, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign Web site. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Corollary: It actually doesn't apply to the averages at the top (someone else correct me if I'm wrong) because a mathematical average is common knowledge - all that information does is keep someone from having to put all those numbers in a calculator to get the same result. That's not "original research" - it's just simple arithmetic. Again, budgets are introduced by the numbered Congresses, so attaching them to a particular President doesn't seem appropriate in any case. I'm in favor of Achowat's proposal. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the only question the remains, Billy Jock, if this is an amicable solution to both of us (again, I have no dog in this fight except the Five Pillars) who is actually going to go and synthesize the information on the page? -Achowat (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology

• Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The article currently discusses, at considerable length, the nature of Heaven, Hell, and angels. To my mind this is not what cosmology is about - cosmology means the shape and origins of the cosmos (the universe). In the context of the article, it has to be a discussion of the way the biblical authors viewed the origin, form and nature of the universe. My attempts to do this have been stymied by şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ:, who reverts everything I do. In fairness I can't say I don't understand - my view of the scope of the article and his are worlds apart, as he wants to retain an in-depth discussion of heaven, hell, and angels, and I'd rather like to discuss things such as the first chapter of Genesis. I can't see any hope of us resolving this through discussion.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Carlaude (talk · contribs)
• PiCo (talk · contribs)
• EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) I'm not "involoved"; I merely posted a comment to perhaps help mediate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Biblical cosmology}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion on article Talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_cosmology#Edit_war:_what_is_cosmology.3F_For_.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8.C5.9F.E1.B9.97.C3.B8.CA.80.C4.B8:

• How do you think we can help?

We need an editor who is (a) trusted by both main parties (myself and CarlAude), and (b) reasonably knowledgeable about biblical cosmology (I might be prepared to lower the bar on the last one). The mediator can help us decide whether an article on biblical cosmology should concern itself mostly with what various theologians have to say about heaven and hell, or what the ancient authors of Genesis etc thought the cosmos looked like.

PiCo (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

PiCo has not (until this DRN post) really said what he wanted on the Biblical cosmology or why. So of course it seems jumping the gun to me to come here already.

We already have a full article on Genesis creation narrative, so if we had to choose between another article on "what ancient authors of Genesis... thought the cosmos looked like", and keeping the article about all of Biblical cosmology, then of course Biblical cosmology needs to stay about its cosmology.

If PiCo thinks it has too many of the ideas of today's theologians rather than the Bible, then we can and should discuss and improve that more. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 06:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read Carl's comment and he makes a valid point, namely that he doesn't know what I'm proposing for the article. I'll outline my problems and proposals on the article talk page, in detail, but as a summary: the existing article doesn't begin to come to grips with the subject, dealing with a number of irrelevant matters instead.

Carl raises the possibility that the article Genesis creation narrative should be enough to deal with biblical cosmology. It isn't: it's one chapter out of 50 in one book out of dozens, and it presents only one part of the bible's views on the cosmos. There's far more to be said. Plus, of course, that article itself has to deal with far more than cosmology, as Genesis 1 is about a lot other than the shape of the universe.

"If PiCo thinks it has to many of the ideas of today's theologians..." If it has any ideas at all from today's theologians, that's too many. The article is about cosmology, not theology, and ancient authors, not modern ones. Cosmology is not theology, and Carl's inability to understand that point is the source of our conflist. PiCo (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, not worrying about angels yet, but aren't heaven and hell (or Sheol) both parts of the biblical universe? If the article is about presenting a picture of the biblical cosmos, to me it only makes sense that heaven and hell would be discussed (as they relate to cosmology, of course; we already have articles on heaven and hell). Carlaude, looking at the article itself, it seems that all of the information about angels is presented much more from the perspective of a mythologist (wikt:myth) than that of a cosmologist - that is, it explains the mythological rank, file, and hierarchy of the angels, but very little about how they relate to the ancients' view of the overall universe. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleddog116, sorry, I didn't notice your comment. Yes, the article has to mention the place of the heavens (always a plural in the bible) and of hell/sheol in the overall biblical cosmology. But it has to be done from a cosmological perspective, not a theological one. (Meaning where they were located in the overall biblical cosmos, what they were for, and how they changed over time). PiCo (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediator comment Hi there, I'm here to help mediate this case. I'm uninvolved in this dispute and have a reasonable grasp of philosophy and theology - hopefully we can bring this to a resolution. The key issue seems to be the scope of the term "cosmology", which is the study of the universe as a whole; Carlaude has rightly noted that this includes Heaven, Hell and whatever else people believe exists. Thus, any part of the universe mentioned in the Bible should be discussed in this article.

I suggest we go about this in a structured way. Firstly, we need to come to agreement over exactly what cosmology encompasses. Once we've done that, we can then look at what "Biblical cosmology" consists of. For now, let's stay focussed on cosmology: we seem to all agree that the earth, heavens and underworld should be include. What do we think regarding angels, celestial bodies and stellar firmament? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering Zippy. Where should this discussion take place? I think the article Talk page? PiCo (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having the discussion here. It means that other impartial mediators can see what is happening and provide input. If you want, pop a DRN template on the talk page of the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Defining "cosmology"

Following ItsZippy's suggestion above that we begin by defining cosmology, I've opened this new subsection, and, on the article talk-page at Biblical cosmology, invited interested editors to put their thoughts here. I'll begin by copying definitions given in two recent scholarly works. (Feel free to add more definitions, or simply discuss these two): PiCo (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Definition: "A comprehensive view of all reality, attending both to the nature of the whole and also to the place of all parts within the whole". (Douglas A. Knight, entry on "Cosmology" in the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Knight goes on: "The origin. order, meaning and destiny of all that exists are key issues in a cosmological system...").

• Definition: "The understanding of the whole universe as an organised, structured entity." (E. C. Lucas, entry on "Cosmology", Alexander and Baker's Dictionary of the Old Testament, page 130).

I've moved your heading down a level so it's under discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A bit of unsourced WP:OR here, but as someone with a degree in anthropology, I think I can see where the problem is here. Is the article about perceptions of 'the Cosmos' as modern Western scientific discourse describes it (consisting of stars, planets etc, conforming to our 'physics'), or is it about 'the Cosmos' as seen by those involved in the writing of the Bible? It seems apparent that hey had no conception of 'stars' in our terms (or of 'physics' as we now define it, for that matter), but they had an understanding of 'the Cosmos', and such things as Angels were just as real to them as sub-atomic particle are to us. On this basis, if an article about 'Biblical cosmology' is to be about anything, it has to be about what it was that those involved in producing it considered 'the Cosmos' to consist of - otherwise, it isn't about them, it is about us asserting our superior knowledge... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Killing Lincoln

• Killing Lincoln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

After talking it over on the wikiproject book page with other editors, I removed the "error list" from the article Killing Lincoln, as a detailed list of what are considered errors in a book amounts to original research. The author of the list reinstated the list and posted a warning to me for removing it. I don't want an edit war, but I do believe, and have heard from other editors, that Wikipedia is NOT the place for this sort of list. I'd offered that he can add a link to a list of corrections to the book on an external page if it's reliable, but have had no luck getting him do that. Help would be appreciated.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Mathewignash (talk · contribs)
• 5Q5 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Killing Lincoln}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk on the talk page and on the wikibooks project page.

• How do you think we can help?

Clairify is this is orignal research or appropiate material to wikipedia.

Mathewignash (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Killing Lincoln discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

From 5Q5: The precedent for revealing the errors in a best-selling book has been well-established with the article Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code?. In Talk:Killing_Lincoln I give examples of other Wiki articles where the controversies in books are noted and discussed. 5Q5 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The contraversary is adequitely noted and discussed as it should be in the "Contraversary' section of the article. The question is whether the editor making an item-by-item list is appropriate or original research. If you read the deletion nomination for the Da Vinci Code article, one thing brought up is that this IS NOT part of the main article on the book, because it would give the article undue weight. The Killing Lincoln error list takes up a major portion of the article. Also, we should note that the De Vinci article is not a simple list (It's not "List of Da Vinci Code errors"), but an actual article citing what people said in reliable sources. It's not a page by page quote and correction on, for example, a word misspelled on page 3, as we see in the list on Killing Lincoln.Mathewignash (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I presume this edit encapsulates the dispute. I believe that while the controversies section is appropriate that this detailed list, while not appearing to be original research, does give the controversy issue undue weight since the controversy is adequately described in the controversy section. The list ought to be, therefore, omitted in my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

5Q5, there's nothing wrong with revealing errors in a book, but as TransporterMan said, there's already a "Controversy" section for that in this particular case - and even that is only appropriate if the errors revealed are the subject of some documented controversy (which none of the provided sources seem to suggest). You've used The Da Vinci Code as a comparison, but there are several problems with that. First, The Da Vinci Code is fiction, while Killing Lincoln is nonfiction. Second, the "errors" presented in the Da Vinci Code article are not minor errors (i.e. book quote followed by correction, such as the exact acreage of Mudd's estate), but significant historical inaccuracies (which, if the history had been presented accurately, would have significantly changed the fictional story) documented by published experts and explained in depth. Also, the literary criticism of The Da Vinci Code is presented in regards to the author's style and technique, but it doesn't point out specifics - merely the opinions of critics. If you can find literary criticism of Killing Lincoln by recognized critics, that might be more appropriate, but as the list is presented, it doesn't really conform to the Manual of Style. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the editor 5Q5 has proposed adding a line in the article saying that the book has not been recalled by the publisher, citing the web site of the publishing company where no recall notice exists, as his source. That really seems to be reporting wishful thinking on the part of the editor, not actual information. There are many books with an error in them that have not been recalled, and I don't think Wikipedia wants to list them all. If anyone wants to give opinion on that now, so it doesn't become the next resolution, I'd appreciate it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

• Otis Redding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Recently I reviewed the article for good article status and failed it on the grounds that the prose is poor. When completing the review I saw that the article had been been self assessed as B class by the GAN nominator, User:GreatOrangePumpkin,diff1 although there was no evidence that a B-class review had ever been carried out. I re-assessed the article as C class.diff2. This was reverted by User:GreatOrangePumpkin.diff3 User:Binksternet endorsed the re-assessment at C-class.diff4 User:GreatOrangePumpkin reverted User:Binksternetdiff5 and has since aggressively stated that anyone can make a B-class assessment and demanded that I give examples of where the prose was poor, although that had already been done in the GA review. I have reverted back to C-class, but User:GreatOrangePumpkin refuses to accept this and has "promoted" the article to B-class again. I believe that if this sort of behaviour goes unchallenged the whole quality rating system of Wikipedia is undermined. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)
• Jezhotwells (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Otis Redding}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Attempted discussion on the article talk page but without any success.

• How do you think we can help?

Hopefully User:GreatOrangePumpkin can be convinced that they should accept the advice of two experienced editors that as it stands the article Otis Redding does not meet B-class standards and that edit warring is not a way to proceed on Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

How do you thin we can help?

Hopefully User:Jezhotwells can be convienced that anyone can assess an article, except if one of those Wikiproject it belongs to has an assessment department. And hopefully he just drop the stick and stop making point edits, because I commented rudely when he failed the GAN, but at least I apologized.

Have you tried...?

No, you did not.

This is a hopless case--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 13:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)}

I was an actor in this little drama—I saw the whole thing play out. I saw Jezhotwells assess the article as C-class, with the edit summary "assess as C , no B class review has been performed." I saw GreatOrangePumpkin revert him 90 minutes later, including the removal of JHW's talk page entry (not good!). I took some time to re-assess the article, determining that it was indeed at C-class, then I reverted GOP and added my endorsement of the C-class rating. GOP then posted a note on the talk page saying that anyone can assess an article, and a minute later restored the B-class rating that he had established. He posted his assessment with check marks to say each aspect was done. He then went to the user talk pages of me and JHW to say we were rude. On the article talk page I said it was not well-written. GOP said I needed more reason than that. JHW said it was not well-written. GOP said examples must be supplied.

Basically, two veteran editors who speak English natively say the article is not well-written enough for B-class, and a non-native English editor who was very much involved with writing the article says that it is well-written enough. In this case I would advise the involved editor to drop the stick. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)