Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

• Please do not add NPOV disputes to this page, but instead discuss them over on the expertly named wikipedia:NPOV dispute.

Gaia Theory User:RK and User:Anthere hate each other's interpretations of this. They fight about it constantly. It has descended into purely vitriolic ad hominem attacks. JHK

No. I don't hate. Certainly not. User:Anthere

List of French monarchs A dispute that about the Merovingian Dynasty since March, I try to write something balanced. Is there any hope to find a way to expose both POV in the article ? Ericd 22:41 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Genetic drift / Neutral theory of molecular evolution A dispute between two different versions of the Genetic drift article. One person is advocating a non-standard approach in order to more "intuitively" express the idea to non-specialists, while another person is advocating a more traditional approach. IMO, both versions have their good and bad points but it is not really possible to do any work on the article while the revert war is going on. --mav 17:12 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually "revert campaign" might be a better term. I notice that my opponent in this election is lobbying people on their user pages. Does Wikipedia regisration come with free political consultant services? I feel at a loss. 168... 01:20 23 May 2003 (UTC)

I've protected the Neutral theory of molecular evolution page. 168... and Slrubenstein cannot handle this themselves. We need someone else with an excellent background in the subject to resolve this issue. --Dante Alighieri 20:29 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Inheritance (object-oriented programming)

For some reason Taku keeps wanting to insist that Inheritance (object-oriented programming), which is a fundamental aspect of the OO paradigm, should be moved to Inheritance (computer science) and is changing similar pages about OO to reflect his unique views about OO. Mintguy 01:40 23 May 2003 (UTC)

If I count corrently, my opinion seems majority here while you are the only one who supports your view in here. The trouble is for some reason Mintguy doen't like a title inheritance (computer science). I don't think any reason no matter if inheritance is fundamental in OOP, then why shouldn't the article named (computer science). Isn't inheritance part of computer science? -- Taku 13:31 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Because Inheritance is part of Object-oriented paradigm, it is fundamentally not part of the procedural or functional paradigms. Mintguy

I concure with Mintguy. Inheritence is a fundamental aspect of OO and therefore properly belongs in Inheritance (object-oriented programming) which is the narrowest category that full encapsulates the concept. Interestingly this semantic distinction actually illustrates Inheritence rather nicely. MartinSpamer[?].

I think Taku has a good point. Besides OO programming, inheritance can also show up in object-relational databases (including the way PostgreSQL can have tables inherit attributes from other tables), and in the way LDAP structures its data. It seems that Inheritance (object-oriented programming) is a subset of the topic Inheritance (computer science). Perhaps we should have both articles, with the computer science one talking about inheritance in a more general way and briefly mentioning non-programming examples, and the OO programming one going into the details of how inheritance is used in programming. Wesley 16:05 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is a perfectly acceptable comprimise to almost all involved in the dispute. If you look at the talk page Talk:Inheritance (object-oriented programming), there was a vote 4 to 2 to this effect. While arguing is still going on, I think this has already been accepted as the solution. MB 19:45 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dianetics An anonymous user is trying to (in my view) move Dianetics from neutrality to a pro- position. I've tried to make his contributions NPOV but he keeps reverting. He also removes links to critical sites. I'm not too knowledgeable in the area so I'm hesitant to keep reverting his stuff.

This user did, by the way, wipe most of the Scientology article. Evercat 14:45 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your revertions - he is making it a pro POV. -- Chris Q 14:50 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Jew There is currently an edit war going on between User:Ezra Wax and User:RK. It should be noted that User:RK is involved in other edit wars. Namely over the Gaia articles. MB 18:02 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)