![]() |
Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread • |
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, mediation, 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard. The current co-ordinator is TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email). |
|||||
Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page 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:
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction | 2In Progress | 209.179.22.107 (t) | 26 days, 5 hours | In veritas (t) | 6 days, 12 hours | Rklawton (t) | 8 hours |
Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment | 8Failed | Obi2canibe (t) | 4 days, 17 hours | KSFT (t) | 6 hours | KSFT (t) | 6 hours |
Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism | 7Closed | Loriendrew (t) | 1 days, 2 hours | TransporterMan (t) | 7 hours | TransporterMan (t) | 7 hours |
Afro#Similar styles_internationally | 7Closed | Zmenglish (t) | 21 hours | TransporterMan (t) | 7 hours | TransporterMan (t) | 7 hours |
Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils? | 1New | Vatasura (t) | 12 minutes | None | n/a | Vatasura (t) | 12 minutes |
![]() Archived DRN Cases |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134 |
This page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Contents
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction
- 1.2 Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment
- 1.3 Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism
- 1.4 Afro#Similar styles_internationally
- 1.5 Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?
Current disputes
Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Erwin Rommel ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Rklawton (talk · contribs)
- Gorthian (talk · contribs)
- 209.179.86.123 (talk · contribs)
- 209.179.22.107 (talk · contribs)
- Camino 2-1-2 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
On 1 Feb 2015 I made a good faith edit to the Erwin Rommel article where I corrected four factual errors and included one footnote. Since the article is semi-protected and my contribution was from my IP address instead of a named account, my edit was pended and had to be approved before it went live. Later on 1 Feb, user Rklawton reverted it, with the rather condescending comment of, "Let's not provide readers with bad translations - especially when the German is both clear and linked." In fact my translations were correct, the German was NOT clear (hence my corrections), and the link is irrelevant, which Rklawton apparently doesn't know. On 2 Feb I politely asked RKLawton on the article Talk page why he reverted my edit. His answer was non responsive, referring me to his vague edit comment. Since I had made several corrections, i didn't know which one(s) he meant, which made it impossible for me to understand his point (especially since I had no errors). Since he was essentially unresponsive, I tried the edit again on 5 Feb. At this point another editor (not RKlevin) reverted it. Oddly, when Gorthian reverted it, he cited WP:BRD, even though his own action ran counter to that guideline. After that, RKLawton sent me a message to my Talk page (209.179.86.123) threatening to block me, again without showing any sign of willingness to discuss my edit. On 7 Feb I made another request to him to discuss it but as of this writing he has refused to do so.
I should add here that this isn't one of those abstract philosophical disputes involving shades of gray or it-depends-on-your-paradigm kind of problem. This is a rather simple factual dispute that should be resolved fairly easily if both parties can discuss it, the way Wikipedia's policies require editors to do.
Please note that that my edit was done as IP 209.179.86.123, and my IP address was subsequently changed to 209.179.22.107. To avoid any more possible confusion, I am using my account name of Camino 2-1-2 for the rest of this DRN.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Since Rklawton has refused to engage in a meaningful discussion there hasn't really been anything i could do.
How do you think we can help?
Get RKLawton to discuss the matter. Since this is a fairly basic question it shouldn't be that hard to reach a consensus, if he is willing to listen to the other side.
Summary of dispute by Rklawton
As noted in my edit summary, the IP provided several bad translations and I reverted them. The IP then demanded an explanation regardless of the fact that his/her edits and my edit summary made the problem self evident. I then left town for a week (and noted so accordingly) for a family funeral. The IP continues to make demands and behave belligerently rather than collegially. Rklawton (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Gorthian
Erwin Rommel happened to be listed on Articles with edits awaiting review, which I monitor infrequently; the latest edit had been "pending" for several hours, so I checked it out. From the edit summaries, it was clear there was a dispute between two editors. 209.179.86.123 had added material, Rklawton reverted it, then 209.179.86.123 had reverted it back. I saw it this way: 209.179.86.123 had been bold and added material, then had been reverted, so the next step was to discuss. I reverted 209.179.86.123, citing WP:BRD, and said "take it to the talk page".
I know almost nothing about the article or its subject, and I have no opinion on the material added. I don't think I'll be any use in a content dispute. But there's my bit of involvement.— Gorthian (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Erwin Rommel#About_the_revert_of_my_1_Feb_2016_correction discussion
- Volunteer note - The filing party (an unregistered editor) has not listed themselves as a party to the case, and has not notified the other two editors. There has been discussion on the talk page. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors (and also to list themselves). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
To DRN volunteers: I encouraged the filing party to create an account, so they could follow the case easier.--In veritas (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Does anyone know if we can bring in a third opinion about the above mentioned German translations? In veritas (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Filing IP has talked to me about creating an account soon, once that happens I will open this case. In veritas (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Moderation may start. The filing IP is now registered account Camino 2-1-2. Let's keep this civil and focused on the content. Since this seems to boil down to a difference in translation opinions, would each editor explain to me and each other, hopefully word by word, why they disagree with the other's translation? In veritas (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- First Statement by Camino 2-1-2 (formerly IP 209.179.86.123)
- First off, I can't help but point out that in my request I wrote, "Hello, Rklawton, could you please explain...," and if that is to be considered demanding and belligerent, then I apologize. I had no idea anyone could consider it as such but I guess you learn something new every day. Since RKLawton even now refuses to explain what his objections are I guess I'll have to go through every one, starting at the bottom of my original edit and working my way up. (I assume that since he said nothing about the footnote I included he has no objections to that, but if he does, I hope he'll say something.)
- I changed "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; German High Command)," to, "Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH; Army High Command)," as I thought including "German" was rather redundant, since no one would assume it was the French High Command (although, considering how ineptly the French conducted themselves, it does look like the German were directing the French forces.). But the High Command of what? The Navy? The Luftwaffe? Oh yes, it does include, "des Heeres," so I feel perfectly confident in translating that as "Army High Command". (Do you see how it's done RKLawton? You state exactly what you think is wrong and then explain why and how it should be changed.) If he challenges the veracity of that I hope he'll explain why.
- Next we come to "Generalleutnant Heinz Guderian," which I changed to, "General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian". I hope RKLawton doesn't think this was a translation as I was simply correcting a factual mistake. Guderian was promoted to the higher rank in 1938 (October, I believe), which is in fact before the war even started.
- My next change involved Erich von Manstein but that is now irrelevant. A subsequent rewrite of that paragraph sent Manstein to the cornfield and any issue with that one is now moot. This brings me to the last, and certainly not the least of these translation issues. Here I changed, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor on..." to, "Rommel was promoted to Generalmajor (Brigadier General) on..." In order to explain this one I would like to ask RKLaton to fill in the chart below, which will be instrumental in determining in what way we disagree on this point. All he need to do is copy the wikitable text (the part from "{| class=wikitable" and "|}", inclusive) to his answer space and fill in the empty boxes. I think doing that will be instrumental in resolving this remaining translation question.
- US / German Officer Comparison Chart
-
Off.
DesigU.S.Rank German Rank Notes O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O-10 O-11
- Please let me know if there are any problems. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Rommel's article is not the place for pedantics or lessons in German military rank. The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General. The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information. Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General. Rklawton (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Start of Second Round
Volunteer note: Discussion has made progress. Camino 2-1-2 does the above comment satisfy your questions? Rklawton are you feeling that this discussion is proceeding in a good direction for you? In veritas (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Pinging them to remind them of the case @Camino 2-1-2 and Rklawton: In veritas (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Camino 2-1-2 Comment
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep everyone waiting. I need to make some points about translating.
The first thing is to not literally parse the term instead of translating it as a concept-to-concept, which is the real trick of translating. Since RKLawton never actually explained what he was thinking, I can only presume that his thought process ran something like this: Generalmajor = General major = Major General. "Translating" it this way is wrong since you are not translating one concept to another. This reminds of the first attempts to use crude computers as translation machines decades ago. They would translate a common English expression into a foreign language and then translate the result back into English. One failed example was the the expression, "Out of sight, out of mind," which when translated into Chinese and then back into English came out as, "Invisible idiot." That's an example of something literally parsed instead of translating a concept.
That is why I suggested the chart as a way to help make the point easier to understand. He didn't fill it out (he may not have known the correct answers) so I'll do it to help make my point.
US / German Officer Comparison Chart
Off. Desig |
U.S.Rank | German Rank | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
O-6 | Colonel | Oberst | |
O-7 | Brigadier General | Generalmajor | |
O-8 | Major General | Generalleutnant | |
O-9 | Lieutenant General | General der Waffengattung (Service Arm) |
An honorific title depending on service arm, thus General der Infantrie, General der Artillerie, etc. |
O-10 | General | Generaloberst | |
O-11 | General of the Army | Generalfeldmarschall |
From this chart we can see why it's incorrect to translate Generalmajor to Major General. When you translate the ranks you go from position to position (left to right), not name to name. After all, the U.S. Army and Navy both have a rank called Captain - would anyone claim that the two are the same position and hold the same amount of authority? Of course not; even though they're both Captains, that doesn't make them the same thing.
Look at it this way. Suppose the article had the following factually correct sentence: "On 23 Aug 1939, Rommel was promoted from Oberst to Generalmajor." Now if that statement were written entirely in English as RKLawton would have it, it would read like this: "On 23 Aug 1939 Rommel was promoted from Colonel to Major General." For the average English speaking reader this would make it look like he was promoted from Colonel to the two star General rank with him completely bypassing the one star General rank. (Refer to the chart above if necessary.) Would that be acceptable? Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to mislead readers or confuse them? I should hope not. Why not put factually accurate information in the article? I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy expects editors to do that.
But to recap, let me address RKLawton's response point by point. He wrote:
- "Rommel's article is not the place for pedantic or lessons in German military rank." I agree wholeheartedly. However, it is the place to put factually accurate information that does not unnecessarily mislead the reader.
- "The correct and only translation for Generalmajor is Major General." That is absolutely incorrect as I have shown above.
- "The equivalent rank may be interesting for some readers and they can follow the link to the Generalmajor article if they want more information." Wikipedia policy is to not unnecessarily require readers to follow links if the correct information can be given on the spot. For example, when the word "Blitzkrieg" is used it is often followed by "(lightning warfare)". While it's certainly appropriate to make it a wikilink so that readers can go to the related article for more information, it is also appropriate to give a quick translation so that the reader is not FORCED to go to another page just to find out what it means.
- "Oddly enough, the Generalmajor article states that the US Army equivalent is also Major General." Well, a proper reading of that article would show that it doesn't apply to Rommel. That article applies to the modern West German Army which was reformed after 1955 when it joined NATO and adopted the NATO command structure, which is almost identical to the traditional U.S. Army command structure. So sending the reader to that article actually misleads the reader, as RKLawton as already experienced.
Hopefully I haven' made this too confusing. I simply had no way of knowing how much detail I needed to go into to explain my position. Thanks again. __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Rklawton Comment
Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Rklawton, it has been two days since Camino 2-1-2 has responded, and the DRN board likes to keep responses every 2 days. Regards, In veritas (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: @Rklawton: Please respond, this case was archived, and I had to save it. In veritas (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Awaiting Camino 2-1-2's response. No rush. Rklawton (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading. Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel. Lastly, comparing Rommel's German rank to U.S. military rank would make the article America-centric, and that is most definitely not appropriate. It would be more appropriate to use Rommels' actual rank and let readers click on the link if they want more information about it. Rklawton (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Start of Third Round
Volunteer note: With responses in from the last round, we can now move into the third round of moderated discussion.
Volunteer note: Pinging @Camino 2-1-2: to tell him or her that we are ready for his or hers response to Rklawton's response.
Volunteer note: It seems like we are nearing a stalemate, hopefully a solution will be appearing soon.
In veritas (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Camino 2-1-2 Comment
I'm not sure what he meant when he wrote, "Translating the link as Camino did would be both confusing and misleading," I don't understand what he meant by "link." What link? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. If he really meant "rank" instead of link, then no, I have already shown this isn't right.
I could take RKLawton's own argument and and show why he's wrong by his own actions. If we leave it his way then it "would be both confusing and misleading," (his words) because readers would incorrectly assume (as he did) that a Generalmajor is the same thing as a Major General. That's what makes this whole thing so bizarre: RKLawton is the living embodiment of the necessity of what I tried to do. He is proof that readers get confused by NOT translating it on the spot! And yet he insists on continuing the confusion. Why?
"Providing a lesson in German ranks on Rommel's page would also be inappropriate as the article is about Rommel." I honestly have no idea of what he's talking about. No one is trying to teach anything of the sort. This is like saying that if someone writes, "Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare)" they are guilty of trying to teach readers German vocabulary. Complete and utter nonsense.
As for the American-centric rank, I guess I'm guilty of assuming too much. Since RKLawton and I are both veterans of the U.S. Army, I used U.S. as a simple frame of reference. I had assumed that RKLawton knew that NATO and her allies around the globe use the same system. I'm dead certain that any English reader in the UK, Canada, Jamaica, Australia, and all parts in between would not scratch their head in bewilderment trying to figure out what the heck a Brigadier General is. As far as I can see, any question about being American-centric is just utter nonsense.
Last, and certainly least, we come to his last point about clicking on the link to get more information. I have already explained about that up above where I noted that Wikipedia's policy is to not force readers to unnecessarily chase links when it can be provided on the spot. Oh, and I also pointed out that the linked article does not apply. Let me repeat that: the linked article does not apply. Do you understand that??? __Camino 2-1-2 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Rklawton Comment
If you'd like to teach a lesson on Nazi era military ranks, do it in an article dedicated to the subject. If it's linking to the "wrong" article, then fix it. However, it is entirely inappropriate to use Rommel's article to try to explain how Nazi era military ranks equated to modern U.S. military ranks. And there's an important distinction that Camino keeps conflating - translation v. equivalency. For the purposes of this article, we need neither (though a link is a good idea). However, if we're going to provide a translation at all, it should be literal. If we don't we're going to have readers saying "WTF?" and trying to change it. Our articles need to be clear and concise. Providing an equivalence is not clear. Explaining the equivalency in the article violates coatrack and is trivial to the article's subject. The only suitable solution is to skip the translation entirely and provide a link. All things considered, I'd recommend Camino to write the appropriate article if one doesn't exist. Rklawton (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Jaffna Airport ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
- Pathmaraman (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Jaffna Airport is an airport owned and operated by the Sri Lanka Air Force. Although civilian aircraft can use the airport with the military's approval, it is primarily a military airport. Since September 2013 the infobox has had the crest of the air force contingent. On 1 January 2016 User:Pathmaraman removed the air force crest with the edit summary "We can't use the SLAF Crest when the Airport is used as a Civilian as well". After a couple of reverts I started a discussion in which I provided WP:RS to show that the airport wasn't civilian, it was controlled by the military. Pathmaraman then proceeded to rename the article Palaly Airport and again removed the air force crest. Pathmaraman then started a WP:RFC on the name of the article and use of the air force crest. A few involved editors responded but none supported Pathmaraman's position. I myself provided evidence to show that the airport's WP:COMMONNAME was Jaffna Airport.
Pathmaraman has ignored my and other editor's comments and refuses to allow the inclusion of the air force crest. He has not provided any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest. He has also ignored standard protocol, namely WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, which require the status quo to reign during an ongoing dispute. There is no consensus for Pathmaraman's position.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Pathmaraman took the dispute to ANI on 28 February where he was told by an admin that this was a content dispute and that he should read what other editors, including myself, have said on the talk page. Pathmaraman ignored the advice and removed the crest again, ordering me to "take this to WP:DRN".
How do you think we can help?
Decide if there are any policy based reason for excluding the air force crest from the article's infobox.
Summary of dispute by Pathmaraman
Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment discussion
Volunteer note: There was already a discussion about this involving these two editors. It reached a pretty clear consensus to include the crest and move the page back. Pathmaraman's arguments were a little rambly and didn't cite any policies or guidelines, so I'm not sure if they have legitimate responses. To clarify, it looks like there is a consensus already from the talk page discussion. Everyone except Pathmaraman agreed that it would be better to include the crest. Pathmaraman's responses to them were unclear, so I'm not completely sure if he had legitimate points, but it looks like everyone else had solid reasons to include it. KSFTC 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - If other editors besides the two parties discussed the edits, shouldn't they be invited to participate in the discussion here? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- The other editors weren't part of the dispute, they were just commenting on the Rfc after being canvassed by Pathmaraman. I have nevertheless left a note on their talk pages inviting them to participate in this discussion.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: My original reverts and RfC are on Name Change and Removal of the Crest, but it turned into different direction when the Editor in Dispute brought the examples of Indian Airports: Agra Airport, Allahabad Airport, Bareilly Airport, Kanpur Airport which are with "Roundel" for a demonstration to me. Since there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports, I have changed Jaffna Airport with AirForce Roundel. The Editor in Dispute doesn't state any valid reasons why Jaffna Airport should be selectively kept with Crest. And no one has stated anywhere in the discussion other than the Editor in Dispute the Crest should be included other than the Roundel.Pathmaraman (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Pathmaraman: it is you who is going against the consensus that had existed for more than two years so it is you who needs to provide arguments using policies and guidelines as why the crest should not be used in the infobox. As mentioned above, to date you have not provided any policy reason as to why the crest cannot be used.
-
- You know very well that I used the Indian airports examples in response to your suggestion that military crests can't be used on civilian airports. It was not meant to suggest that the SLAF roundel should be used on Sri Lankan airports. Whilst there is consensus for using the IAF roundel on Indian airports, no consensus exists for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports. No other Sri Lankan airport uses the SLAF roundel but several (i.e. Ampara Airport, Batticaloa Airport, China Bay Airport and Vavuniya Airport) use their SLAF contingent crests. Your addition of the Sri Lankan air force roundel to Jaffna Airport is another example of you taking unilateral action, without any consensus.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- There can't different standards for Indian Airports and Sri Lankan Airports; all are WikiSpace. If there is a consensus for Indian Airports to use Roundel, then it could be applied all the Airports on WikiSpace.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- And all the Sri Lankan Airports Crests have been uploaded by you, not by several editors.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Volunteer note: There's a discussion here anyway, so I'm formally opening this case. KSFTC 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- We can, and do, have different "standards" for different articles, that's the whole point of consensus. A group of editors may come to a consensus that an article, or group of articles, are subject to differing standards. But this consensus isn't applied universally, it's only applied to the articles that were the subject of the consensus building. For example, WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. But as this consensus was only discussed in respect of India related articles, it cannot be applied to other articles. It cannot, for example, be used to exclude Sinhala and Tamil script from the lede in Sri Lanka.
-
-
-
-
-
- Wikipedia policies can override consensus. However, you have failed to provide any policy to override the consensus which existed.
-
-
-
-
-
- Although I did add the crest, no one else has objected to their inclusion in over two years. Therefore we can assume that there was consensus for their inclusion.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- When we create Wikipedia articles, we should give importance to the geographical sentiments of the people since one factor of the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war is language policy itself. So the Roundel will serve the purpose than the Crest, because the Crest is with Sinhala language alone. That is the reason WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. That is also the reason Indian Airports are with Roundel alone. It is because no one has objected more than two years doesn't mean there is a consensus. We can ask other Tamil editors whether I am wrong.Pathmaraman (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Geographical sentiment" isn't a Wikipedia policy. Can you provide evidence to show that the use of IAF roundels and WP:INDICSCRIPT are as a result of "geographical sentiment"? Please read WP:EDITCONSENSUS again - "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". The inclusion of the crests was not disputed or reverted for more than two years. Why should we ask Tamil editors - is Wikipedia a Tamil project?--obi2canibetalk contr 19:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes, Jaffna's 90% population is Tamils and an Airport which is used for civilian purpose as well, should remain either neutral or in Tamil. Tamil editors' opinions sre needed here.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Pathmaraman: You claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports". I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right? Otherwise you would agree with Obi2canibe and there would be no dispute. If I'm right, could you provide a link to that consensus? KSFTC 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What do you mean by "I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right?"; if "no dispute for more than 2 years" could be interpreted as Consensus, then Indian Airports Roundel usage also could be considered as Consensus.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage. Pathmaraman (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not seeing any policy based argument from you Pathmaraman, just emotional ones. I'm afraid I'm going to have to repeat myself - there was consensus for use of the SLAF crest because Jaffna Airport and several other Sri Lankan airports have had SLAF crests for more than two years without any objection. But you are correct in one thing - there was no consensus for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports but you nevertheless added it unilaterally.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coordinator's note: The discussion at this point does not, at least on quick examination, seem to be making any real progress. I'm going to ask the parties to hold off on any further discussion until the lead volunteer on this case, KSFT, can provide some additional structure. If you wish to continue discussing at the article talk page you are, of course, free to continue to do so, but it would be much better if you would both simply hold off from further discussion and editing in relation to the matters in dispute until KSFT weighs in. His/her remarks and any further comments or discussion should go after this Coordinator's note, by the way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
@Pathmaraman: Can you explain the discrepancy between this edit and this one? Specifically, I'm asking about why you claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel" in the first one, and then that "[t]here were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage" in the second one. obi2canibe is correct that citing policy and quoting the relevant parts would help your argument.
@Obi2canibe: Repeating yourself doesn't help progress the discussion. While you're right that silence implies consensus, there is not silence; Pathmaraman objects. You need to cite established policies that support the inclusion of the crest, not implied consensus that doesn't exist anymore. KSFTC 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus can change and by objecting to the inclusion of the SLAF crest, Pathmaraman has challenged the consensus. But he has not gained consensus for his proposals either as no-one else has supported the removal of the crest. In the Rfc only one other editor commented on the crest, Zyxw, and he has stated that he doesn't "see a problem with keeping the SLAF crest in the article".
- In this discussion I provided five WP:RS to show that the airport was controlled by the SLAF. I have therefore complied with WP:V to support the inclusion of a SLAF image in the infobox. The airport infobox document provides an example of usage on air force bases (Example 4 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). This example doesn't use the USAF roundel, it uses crest of the Air Force Materiel Command, a USAF unit based at the air force base. Therefore, by using the crest of the SLAF contingent based at Jaffna Airport we are following the recommendation of the creators of the infobox.
- One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia article on Jaffna Airport readers would expect to see an image specifically related to the subject (crest) in the infobox, not a general image (roundel). Image use policy states that images should directly depict the activities described in the article. In this respect the crest is a better choice than the roundel. And as the image use policy also states, Wikipedia is not censored so we cannot remove the crest simply because it upsets Pathmaraman or others.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Zyxw mentioned that the Crest usage is OK before I brought the Roundel into the scene. If Obi2Canibe can take the example of US Crest usage into consideration, why can't we take the Indian Roundel usage.....? Pathmaraman (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Obi2canibe has taken the wrong example. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is ONLY used for military purposes, if they want they can use the Crest. But Jaffna Airport is used both military and civilian purposes like the Indian Airports, Kanpur Airport, Bareilly Airport, Allahabad Airport and Agra Airport; in this cases a Roundel is more applicable.Pathmaraman (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Time to drop the stick - Pathmaraman hasn't provided any policies or any other editor editor to support his position but is filibustering to get his own way. I don't want waste anymore of my or the mediator's time on this editor. It is editors like Pathmaraman who come to Wikipedia for a single purpose who make regular editors like myself question why we bother trying to create an encyclopedia when an editor can get their own way through bloody minded stubbornness.
Thank you to KSFT for trying to mediate. Please close this discussion.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - I will let the primary moderator act on the discussion to close the case, but will suggest that the next step might be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As Pathmaraman is not attempting to have a useful discussion about policy, we aren't getting anywhere, so I'm closing this case as failed. I agree with Robert McClenon's recommendation of an RFC. KSFTC 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Afro#Jewfro: anti-Semitism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Afro#Similar styles_internationally
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Tamils#Are Tamils a stateless nation or only Sri Lankan Tamils?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Tamils ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Vatasura (talk · contribs)
- 117.192.210.109 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Vatasura claim Tamils as a nation and as whole a stateless nation, but User:117.192.210.109 claim Tamils in India are not stateless nation and Tamils in Sri Lanka are stateless nation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
So far only discussed, no other steps made.
How do you think we can help?
Volunteers with experience in nationalism, ethnic or history can certainly enlighten us.