Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 130

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

Pashtuns

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by WikiBulova on 23:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• WikiBulova (talk · contribs)
• Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The User:Krzyhorse22 has removed the photos of Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan and Pashtun Forien Minister of Pakistan. But he insists on the photos of non-Pashtun Indian actresses with Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan to be added in the Pashtuns page. Are photos of Indian actors and actresses more important than the Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan in the Pashtuns page ? If so then why do the photos of Pashtun Presidents of Afghanistan are also there in Pahtuns page. The Indian actresses Anushka Sharma and Katrina Kaif are not even Pashtuns ! The photo of just Shah Rukh Khan by himself can be added but not with the non-Pashtun Indian actresses. Like we have the photo of just Indian actor Saif Ali Khan in the Pashtuns page. I am going to move this issue to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you persist in adding photos of non-Pashtun Indian actresses and remove photos of Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan. Thanks

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on this talk page and Pashtun talk page

How do you think we can help?

The Pashtuns page should have photos of all Pashtun that have reached high political positions. The photos Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan and Foriegn Minister are being deleted while Indian actor who may be ethnically Pashtun with non-Pashtun actresses is being added. While there are several photos of Afghan Pashtun Presidents. This page is about all Pashtuns not just Afghan Pashtuns.

Summary of dispute by Krzyhorse22

User:WikiBulova is being disruptive, he seems to have a problem with people from India. He appeared for the first time at this article and began removing the pictures of all the young famous Bollywood stars who have ethnic Pashtun background, which is well sourced and verified by editors in the past. Instead, he filled the article with bald headed old Pakistani men whos ethnicity cannot be verified. See [1]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns discussion

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

Hi there, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN. Taking a look at the talk page, I think I have a perspective on the situation here and some feedback, however I would like to hear from Krzyhorse22 before I open this up for further discussion. (Other volunteers, if I for some reason drop off the face of the earth for a day or two and the case still hasn't had any commentary, can this be closed as insufficient discussion? Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Krzyhorse22 Well ! The bald headed old man was a ethnic Pashtun and President of Pakistan while your pretty young Indian actresses are not Pashtuns. Last time I checked both ethnic Pashtun Afghan Presidents Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani were also bald old men. Have they grown hair and became younger lately ? WikiBulova (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright. let's cut this off right here. I'd like us to focus on the issue at hand rather than each other, so I will start by asking only for links to the relevant discussions where the previous infobox images were decided on, and the discussion where the change to these images was discussed and agreed on (and no other comments, please, solely these links). Thank you. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 01:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, I apologize. Just our esteemed friend User:Krzyhorse22 commented about excluding bald headed old and adding the young famous Bollywood stars and just made sarcastic joke. I again apologize. Nonetheless, the article is about accomplished Pashtuns who speak Pashto and not a beauty contest of actors and actresses. WikiBulova (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising, I hope we can keep things on track. That said, changes to Wikipedia do require a consensus among editors - it's what makes this site relatively stable, if we just make changes all over the place without discussing them, then well Wikipedia will become the mess that some members of the public think it is. Now, I imagine at one point there was a discussion regarding the original images in the infobox. I thank you for your comments, but at this time (as they are the advocate for keeping the infobox images the way they were) ask that WikiBulova point me to the original discussion/s where the infobox images were decided. Once we have that, I'll continue the discussion (I'd ask that comments apart from the ones I have asked for wait until after I've opened up this for more discussion). Thanks. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 02:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this discussion, Steve? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Took a glance at that, but it's a bit of a mess when I look at the discussion (a lot of insults, etc - definitely not the sort of decorum I expect.) I'll keep reading it over, thanks. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 02:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Honestly, I'm not following the actual technical problems of this discussion too closely. This dispute looks to have been enabled by a lack of respectful atmosphere on the article's talk page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The images in the infobox is not the issue. WikiBulova specifically removed the images of widely recognized Pashtuns who are from India (i.e., Shah Rukh Khan and Saif Ali Khan) from the article's body and replaced them with more Pakistani politicians (Sartaj Aziz and Ghulam Ishaq Khan). First, the Ghulam's image by policy is not allowed in the Pashtun article. [2] Second, Sartaj Aziz's ethnicity is unproven and he is not widely recognized as Pashtun, it's word of mouth only. WikiBulova is doing WP:OR by claiming he is Pashtun. The basic rule is that we must first verify someone's ethnicity before adding such claim in the Pashtun article. This has been discussed many times in the article's talk page in the past. Third, WikiBulova doesn't like to see the two popular Indian actresses standing next to Shah Rukh Khan, who are often seen as lovers in Bollywood films. WikiBulova prefers an image with him being alone. Notice that in the same article Zalmay Khalizad appears with former U.S. President George W. Bush [3] and Malala Yousefzai with current U.S. President Obama and his family [4] but this didn't affect WikiBulova. Therfore, he clearly has a problem with people from India, meaning he is racist toward a particular group. I, on the other hand, think that having the two popular Indian actresses standing next to Shah Rukh Khan is helpful in the article because it expresses his popularity in India, in Bollywood films, and particularly with Indian women, the same way the expression of importance is given to Malala with Obama, Khalilzad with Bush at the White House, and Bacha Khan with Mahatma Gandhi.[5] This obviously doesn't mean Obama, Bush and Gandhi are Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns have been migrating and settling in Delhi Sultanate and later Mughal Empire for last 800 years. These Pashtun have lost their language and culture after few generations and have been assimilated in the local Urdu culture and are now known as Pathans. There is a clear distinction between Pashto speaking Pashtuns and non-Pashto speaking Pathans claiming Pashtun heritage but cannot speak Pashto language for many generations. There also people who also adopted Khan family name that does not mean they are Pashtuns. There are millions of Pathans in Pakistan and India. There can be two pages one for the Pashtuns who speak Pashto and other for the Pathans who have lost ability to speak Pashto for many generations. The people must make distinction between Pashtuns and Pathans which may be the cause of conflict here. The Pathans page is being redirected to Pashtuns page and it could resurrected for Pathan community of Pakistan and India. There are 31 million Pashtuns in Pakistan and only 13 million in Afghanistan and they are under represented in Pashtun page. I am not being racist, I am just indicating that Pashtun page should have photos of Pashtun people and Indian actors and actresses are not Pashtuns but could be Pathans. Why are Pashtuns from Pakistan are being Pakistanis while the Indian actors who can't even speak Pashto are being ethnic Pashtuns ? By the way, I don't see User:Krzyhorse22 apologising for his comment insulting bald old people. I would be making this report separately if it is not being discussed here. On personal note, My maternal family also claims to be Pashtuns but can't speak Pashto so they are Pathans but not Pashtuns. In the Shah Rukh Khan's page it clearly indicates he had Pathan father and Hyderabadi mother not clearly Pashtuns. The followings are URLs where Shah Rukh Khan claims to be Pathan and NOT Pashtuns. How SRK’s Pathan father fell in love with his South Indian mother Also look at these pages: Pathans of Punjab, Pathans of Rajasthan, Pathans of Uttar Pradesh, Pathans of Bihar, Pathans of Gujarat and Rohilla. Thsese are Pathans who claim Pashtun heritage. WikiBulova (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why you keep putting images of non-Pashto speaking Pakistanis (Ayun Khan, Sartaj Aziz, Ghulam Ishaq Khan) in Pashtun article? [6] SRK's father was born and grew up in Peshawar, he was a Pashto-speaking ethnic Pashtun. SRK's father's father was from Afghanistan. [7] They spoke Urdu? Maybe Chinese? Every native person of Peshawar speaks Pashto, they identify selves as "Pashtuns" (not Pathans). Pashtun ethnicity is inherited through father (not mother), and it is not defined by the use of Pashto language. There are a number of white Americans who learned Pashto and can speak it fluently (search in YouTube), are these white Americans Pashtuns? Why should I apologize for describing someone as a bald old Pakistani? Should I call him a young non-bald American instead?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You want [8] to be accepted as reference in Wikipedia then let the Administrators decide it. There are also as you put it "bald old men" in the Pashtuns page like Bacha Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani but you only choose to insult Ghulam Ishaq Khan. If you want to accept all the Pathans as Pashtuns then you will have at least 80 million in Pakistan, 20 million in India, 13 Million in Afghanistan, 3 million in Bangladesh, etc. What do you think is the difference between words Pathan and Pashtun ? In India and Pakistan, Pathan is a person who speaks Urdu language and his ancestors may have been Pashtuns. Well, People learning second language is different from their mother tongue. Lets us look at the Rohilla Pashtuns, who were the last pure Pashtun dynasty in North India and were defeated and ethnically cleansed by the British and remaining later assimilated in Urdu speaking community. Rohillas were attacked by the neighbouring kingdom of Oudh, who also received assistance from the British East India Company forces under Colonel Alexander Champion. This conflict is known as the Rohilla War. When Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech was killed, in April 1774, Rohilla resistance crumbled, and Rohilkhand was annexed by the kingdom of Oudh. Rohillas fled into the dense forests across the Ganges, and later began a guerilla war. In response, many Rohillas were hunted down by the troops of British East India company and subsequently scattered in the countryside. They settled in many small towns and cities. Charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide were brought against Warren Hastings of the East India Company, by Edmund Burke and were later taken up by Thomas Babington Macaulay. Rohilla even escaped to Nepal but British forced Nepal to extradite Rohilla Pashtuns. The whole of Rohilkhand (including Bareilly, Pilibhit and Shahjanpur) was surrendered to the East India Company by the treaty of November 10, 1801. That date marks the transformation of last remaining Pashtuns in Northern India into Pathans.

• Ayub Khan was born on 14 May 1907 in Rehana, a village in Hazara District. of the North-West Frontier Province of British India (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan). He belonged to the Tareen tribe of Pashtuns.
• Sartaj Aziz was born in 1929 in the Pashtun Kakakhel family in the Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In the 1940s, Aziz was a young activist in the Muslim League-led Pakistan movement. Aziz was educated at Islamia College of Lahore and then obtained a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the Punjab University in 1949.
• Ghulam Ishaq Khan was born in Ismail Khel, a rural locality on the outskirts of Bannu District, both villages in the North-West Frontier Province of the British Indian Empire, now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. He was an ethnic Bangash Pashtun. His family remains active in politics; his son-in-law is former federal minister Anwar Saifullah Khan. A granddaughter of his is married to Omar Ayub Khan, who is the grandson of former military dictator Ayub Khan and son of politician Gohar Ayub Khan.

WikiBulova (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I know about these people more than you. It is undisputable fact that these were/are non-Pashto speaking Pakistanis. See here The population figures are only guesses, not allowed in Wikipedia. All Pakistanis use Urdu. Bottom line, to put someone in Pashtun article you must cite a reliable source where the ethnicity can be verified. Dead links cannot be used and doing WP:OR is not allowed. About the YouTube video, it has been used in his article for years. [9] That's him explaining (clearly and in detail) to the world that his father's father was from Afghanistan, why don't you accept it?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

More than 91% Pakistani do not speak Urdu as mother tongue. It is used as national language since it was used as inter-community language since the British Raj in 1857. Languages in Pakistan are: Punjabi 44.17%, Pashto 15.44%, Sindhi 14.12%, Saraiki 10.42%, Urdu 7.59% and Balochi 3.59%. Languages of Pakistan. Actually the Indian actors and actresses are non-Pashto speaking Pathans and not Pashto Pashtuns. While in Afghanistan, Persian used as inter-community language and not Pashto. WikiBulova (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

•  Volunteer note: Please cease from further engaging in a threaded discussion before this case is opened by a DRN volunteer. However, you may continue to discuss the issue in the talk page of the article constructively. (P.S. Personal attacks are not tolerated and will have this case closed). Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  There is no personal attack, I described the pictures of two individuals (not editors) who happen to be old and bald. How is that a personal attack?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  There are also other photos of, as the User:Krzyhorse22 succinctly put it bald old men, in the Pashtuns page like Bacha Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani but he choose to insult only Ghulam Ishaq Khan. This clearly personal insult to all Bald Old Men WikiBulova (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  The photos of Bacha Khan, Gandhi, Karzai, and Ghani were not involved in this dispute. I called them bald old men so others can focus on which photos are disputed.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I'll take the case if we keep the discussion to the picture(s). We'll leave deciding exactly what a Pashtun is to all the editors of that page, and not just Krzyhorse and WikiBulova. Keep responses short and clear as possible, keep argumentative tone to a minimum. Respond within 48 hours of each post by the volunteer moderator, that should mean checking the DRN every day. Do all parties agree to these terms? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Agree. The ONLY thing needed is non-dead links to reliable sources explaining clearly that Sartaj Aziz (SA) and Ghulam Ishaq Khan (GIK) are in fact "Pashtuns". The Kakakhel (tribe) article is unsourced POV. Also, the GIK image in Pashtun article should be removed because it is not allowed by the fair use policy. See at the very bottom here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Change of plans. Steve Crossin will be hosting the discussion as volunteer moderator. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Haven't forgotten about this, just got a tad on today and will revisit this tomorrow. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Glane23 on 22:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:NatGertler#Jack London entry (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alumzsh (talk · contribs) NatGertler (talk · contribs) Dispute overview By User: Alumzsh: I was asked by the Chairman of the Board of CACI, Dr. Jack London, to occasionally update his Wiki entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_London_%28businessman%29). The last time I went to update it, I found that nearly the entire entry had been deleted. The primary culprit was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserProfile/NatGertler. I proceeded to undo the deletion and try to add photos as provided by Dr. London. Almost immediately (and repeatedly through the day) this NatGertler person kept re-deleting and adding inaccurate tags to the entry. I tried to engage them on the talk page. However, my factual submission and professional tone was met with abusive and accusatory response. that I do, indeed, work for CACI. Furthermore, I have been authorized by the subject to make these updates. The subject provided images to add to the entry. They are not available anywhere else. I also briefed him on the rules of submitting photographs. If my relationship to the author needs to be verified, I refer you to the Amazon.com entry for the book we worked on together. http://www.amazon.com/Character-Ultimate-J-Phillip-London/dp/1937592383/ref[..] My name is directly underneath his on the book cover. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Engaged the other editor on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I would like to be able to restore the entry without this NatGertler person or anyone else deleting legitimate information due to false assumptions. I can only conclude this other editor cannot be reasonably engaged without third party involvement. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Alumzsh Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NatGertler Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Complaining editor (who has a clear conflict of interest) has repeatedly inserted resume material at Jack London (businessman) copied from the subject's corporate bio. The addition of this material has been reverted, in whole or part, by other editors as well (Fyddlestix (talk · contribs) and Cwobeel (talk · contribs), with KConWiki (talk · contribs) tagging the material ), so it lacks consensus for inclusion... and even if there was consensus, the material's copyright violation problems would override that (copyvio concerns also included added photos, which the complainant claimed were his own work, but which he describes above as having been provided by the subject). Complainant has posted 0 messages on the article's talk page. My postings on the complainant's talk page were all templates, with the addition of The material you're using would be inappropriate even if it weren't violation of copyright; it's hype-filled and inappropriately sourced, as the company's website is not a third-party source for the head of the company. and Your statement on my user page is basically a statement of conflict of interest. Review the discussion at User_talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry to see what I actually said to him on my page; I suspect you'll recognize it largely as attempting to explain Wikipedia policy, if at times bluntly. Complainant's only non-automated summary on the article was "Restoring deleted material", which, yes, explained what he did, but not why all concerns were overlooked. So yes, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)'s summary below is accurate - this is an editor showing a poor understanding of Wikipedia while trying to stop responsible edits that are inconvenient to his goals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC) User talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There are at least two related problems with this request. First, this request appears to be a request to use this noticeboard to assert article ownership of an article about a businessman by the company of which he is the board chairman. Second, the filing party appears to be trying to copy copyrighted material to this article. I recommend closure of this thread as reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and with a warning to the filing party. As a minor point, the filing party has not notified the other editor, but that wouldn't fix the fact that this dispute is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Martin McGuinness#.22deputy.22_vs_.22Deputy.22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Moonboy54 on 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Martin McGuinness#.22deputy.22 vs .22Deputy.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved several (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Constant edit warring on the capitalization of "deputy" vs. "Deputy" Have you tried to resolve this previously? Other users have initiated the RFC process to no avail How do you think we can help? Provide guidance on how to prevent further edit warring and to reach a concensus Summary of dispute by several Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Martin McGuinness#.22deputy.22_vs_.22Deputy.22 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by FreeatlastChitchat on 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Criticism of religion sidebar#Non-religion critics entries (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs) Capitals00 (talk · contribs) D4iNa4 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors want to remove people who are clearly critics of religion. People like A. C. Grayling, Sanal Edamaruku, Meera Nanda and Tarek Fatah have clearly criticised various religions in their books, but even then a couple of editors wish to remove them from the list. I would like them to be included in the list. I am requesting dispute resolution so that we can decide once and for all which person to involve and whom to exclude(if there are any exclusions). The debate on talkpage seems to be going nowhere as the editor in question will not even respond to my arguments. A while ago I discussed the exclusion of A. C. Grayling and got him back, but now others are being excluded without any reason given on the talkpage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to initiate something on the talkpage when Grayling was excluded, he was included due to discussion. Response to recent exclusions seems to be nill. Instead of discussing the editor in question went into revert-mode How do you think we can help? This dispute can be resolved by deciding once and for all whom to include and whom to exclude. As the editors removing these people will not listen to me perhaps an uninvolved volunteer will have a better chance. Summary of dispute by Capitals00 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Completely disregarding this forum shopping, A. C. Grayling was included already, and these issues have been already solved on talk page as most editors support present version and supported by WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP. Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by D4iNa4 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other parties. One of those editors appears to be declining to participate. Waiting for a reply from the other editor. Two other editors participated in the editing of the template page itself before it was locked due to edit-warring. Should they also be invited to participate in this discussion? I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Comment - I recommend that this case be accepted. The template is currently full-protected and it is clear that the participants are unable to reach agreement without additional advice. It would be a bit much to discuss each and every entry at the DRN, but the general principles for inclusion/exclusion need to be determined. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC) @Kautilya3 and Robert McClenon, I am willing to work on all the critics if it helps solve this problem once and for all. I can provide sources where each and every one of them has criticized the religion under which they have been listed. However, the editors who have been reverting me have not been discussing anything, neither on the TP, nor here. I am not sure what a person can do in this situation. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 24 hour closing notice: Since one editor feels that this has been solved (which implies that s/he does not care to participate here) and the other has not responded, this case will be closed as futile by a volunteer after this time tomorrow unless there is a dramatic change in that situation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) @User:TransporterMan the page is currently under full protection, nothing has been solved. What can I do to solve this problem? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2016 (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.

Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lokshin kugel on 02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of notable former Orthodox Jews#Statement On Historic Use of the Word Orthodoxy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lokshin kugel (talk · contribs) Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I opened up a page to create a list of notable former orthodox Jews. I have not yet had the chance to substantially source it, but it is a project I am currently committed to. Two editors, Sir Joseph and Debresser, revert many of my insertions without giving reasons, or for overly general, unsourced reasons. They cite WP help pages incorrectly, and don't respond to the substance when I respond. They revert citing consensus, without waiting for consensus to develop on the talk page. After I open up the conversation on the talk page, if I revert based on the discussion on the talk page, they accuse me of edit warring. It seems like consensus, to them, is automatically their personal opinion, opinions they may not even bother sharing on the talk page. I have tried engaging in civil discourse, but I am shot down again and again without substantive conversation. I am trying to build this page out in good faith, but am being prevented from doing so by these two editors, both of who are committed to deleting this page. I am being turned off from editing WP due to the hostility I am experiencing. I don't know what to do to build out this page in good faith. I have tried civil discourse on the talk page, but am being shot down, often with personal attacks or instructions to other editors to ignore me, and without substantive or civil engagement, again and again. What should I do to help build this page out in good faith? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried engaging in conversation on the talk page, and using/citing WP help pages and other pages. I first attempted WP Incidents, but it was turned down without explanation as far as I saw. I turned to editor advice, but no one has responded there. Another editor, on another page, boruch baum, reported his experience with debresser on this page, and I saw his conflict was addressed. So I am turning to this page, too, in the hopes this conflict can be resolved amicably here. Thank you. How do you think we can help? Advice on how to engage with hostile editors in a productive manner. Mediation and or a neutral third opinion. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Debresser. This article is up at Afd and seems to go to a unanimous delete, the filing editor excluded. That fact alone not only makes this post superfluous, but also puts this post in the correct perspective. I am referring to the unanimity. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:190.150.36.88

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 190.150.36.88 on 01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:190.150.36.88 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Eteethan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A person by the name of Eteethan from Boston is deleting my edits to the entry on Laszlo Csatary that is incorrect. There is a book that has been written about this that exonerates Laszlo Csatary with documented proof from the National Archives of Hungary. This man in Boston is attempting to suppress the truth. That is illegal in America. He needs to be stopped. He has no business getting involved in what he knows nothing about. I will not stand for this abuse of my family. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote to him telling him to stop deleting my edits. How do you think we can help? Delete the article on Laszlo Csatary. It is not true. Laszlo Csatary was stationed elsewhere when the deportations happened. He had nothing to do with them. Summary of dispute by Eteethan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:190.150.36.88 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mattnad on 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Campus sexual assault Archived discussion page RFC (inconclusive) later discussion Users involved Mattnad (talk · contribs) Nblund (talk · contribs) Aquillion (talk · contribs) Carwil (talk · contribs) VQuakr (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the Campus sexual assault article a new study on campus sexual assault by the AAU was added. In that study, and picked up by multiple sources, was that the majority of respondents that the study said had been sexually assaulted did not report the event because "they didn't think it was serious enough to report". Nblund takes issue with including this detail and has several times removed it from the article despite it being covered by mainstream news sources such as the Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, and CNN. Even something that understates the level ("many" instead of "majority") has been removed by Nblund (while leaving in other reasons in the preceding sentence). Nblund has argued that its misleading and cites opinions written years before the AAU study that explain why women might say that, without meaning it the way a plain reading of the question might suggest. He or she wants to separate it from the AAU study section, keep it out of the lede, and will only permit it if there's a rebuttal. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed this at length, including an RFC (inconclusive), and later discussion How do you think we can help? Given that the RFC is inconclusive with few editors being interested in the topic, I'd like others to weigh in, either here or at the RFC to help decide a simple question. Can we include the AAU findings that the majority of respondents who were classified as victims of sexual assault didn't report it because they "didn't think it was serious enough to report."? I think it's fair to include that in the lede and attached to the section on the survey. Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nblund As I stated in the RfC: I do not think that the finding needs to be left out of the article. I do think that that finding should only be mentioned in the context of the existing academic research on women's reasons for not reporting sexual victimization. There are two things that I think should be made clear to readers: This finding is not new or unique. The AAU finding is consistent with several decades of previous research on this topic, and it's misleading and unhelpful to fail to point this out. There has been peer reviewed research in to why women choose not to report their victimization to the police. Experts generally view this response as indicative of the difficulties women face in reporting sexual assault, and do not think it should be taken "at face value", as Mattnad suggests. I suggested that we could cite some of Bonnie Fisher's research to present the expert views of that finding. Mattnad doesn't seem to dispute the veracity of either of these points, but instead has argued that including Fisher's work in relation to the AAU study would constitute "original research coattrack" because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was "fringe" work. However, as Carwil noted in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (page 36), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. Nblund (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Aquillion I've explained my feelings on this on the talk page, so I'll be brief about them here: I don't feel that most sources place the degree of significance on this particular statistic that Mattnad does. While it gets mentioned, it's usually one sentence amid an assortment of different factoids from the study; by comparison, most articles lead with the overarching figure on prevalence of sexual assault (which is, after all, the main conclusion of the study.) Putting it in the lead the way Mattnad is suggesting is artificially forcing an equal weight on two things that are clearly not weighted equally in the sources, and clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that most sources have not treated as so significant. Mattnad says that "it has been covered" by many sources; but the weighting and tone within those sources is also important to pay attention to. As far as I can tell, none of them (aside from one editorial) have given it any significant weight. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Carwil Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My involvement in this dispute began with the RfC posted in October. In my view, a question of policy and guidelines underlies this dispute at all stages, namely how best to identify reliable sources. Mattnad has put forward requests on the basis that multiple reliable sources (newspaper articles covering the 2015 Campus Climate Survey) should frame the article's use of the underlying study, which was produced by academics in a rigorous, fact-checking manner, though perhaps not subject to peer review. In my estimation, "The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Wikipedia shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the … researchers' published findings." This follows from the guidance at WP:NEWSORG. Delving a bit more into the substance of the dispute, there is the question of whether, and how much, to highlight a follow-up question asked to students who did not report their rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Such students reported a number of reasons, the most frequent of which is the incident was "not serious enough to report." My read on the cause of the dispute is that external writers (including the oft-cited Stuart Taylor, an expert with a different view on the importance of campus sexual assault) have built a point-of-view around the non-serious nature of most assaults reported in survey data, and that this one survey result is intended to back up that POV. This page is deluged by trench warfare on this point, and editors are thereby sidetracked from their role of fully describing the extent and nature of campus sexual assault, as well as the reasons for non-reporting. There's more material in the 2015 CCS that isn't on the page, and an abundant peer-reviewed research literature (including the much-mentioned but hardly used Fisher 2003 article) on the subject of survivor's reporting decisions that could and should be included on the page. In my view, the next step should be to flesh out the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section with more of the results from that survey, and to create a section summarizing the literature on non-reporting. Fisher 2003's and Stuart Taylor's positions can be summarized in this new section. The "not serious enough to report" survey response simply isn't so important as to need to be in the lead right now.--Carwil (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VQuakr Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been considerable recent discussion at the talk page, and proper notice, so that this case can be opened by a volunteer. There was an RFC, which has not been formally closed but has expired, and does not prevent discussion here. The RFC was not concisely worded and attracted little comment. Either discussion here or rewording the RFC neutrally with better publicity might be appropriate. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Volunteer note 2: I'm a bit concerned that we do not provide the kind of service expected by the filing party based upon his answer to the "How do you think we can help" question. What we do here is, per the header, "we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" or, in short, we facilitate discussion between the parties. Volunteers here may, if they choose, close a case by offering an opinion when there is a clear single outcome set by policy but that's just one volunteer's opinion and only applies in the most clear-cut of cases. In short, if all Mattnad is looking for is additional people to weigh in then this isn't the place to obtain that and he should consider withdrawing this request; on the other hand, if he feels that there's still a possibility that he and the responding party might work it out with some additional supervised discussion, then he's in the right place. What do you say, Mattnad? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator) Pinged for comment: I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the "compromise" offered by Nblund is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Wikipedia around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough."Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Good deal. Let's see if the responding editor chooses to participate. (Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and never mandatory.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and stop trying to re-insert the disputed material in to the lead paragraph of the entry until some kind of consensus is reached. It's hard to tell what changes are being discussed when the status quo keeps moving. I think Robert McClenon's proposal for a new round of RfC's may be a better basis for generating consensus, and I think a lack of eyeballs on the page is part of the root problem. That said: it seems like we have talked past each other on the nature of the dispute, and I think confusion over the nature of the dispute made the previous round of RfCs less productive than they could have been. Is it outside the scope of this process to ask for a mediated discussion simply to clarify the dispute itself, with the goal of creating a more productive round of RfCs? Nblund (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) We could try another RFC, but I'm fine just adding the reporting on the finding (per AP as a mainstream reliable source) and in the spirit of NPOV the WaPo interpretation (with appropropriate mention of the source). Fisher has made her career around sexual assault, but for the benefit of the other editors here, the DOJs bureau of justice statistic has found 0.61% annual incidence for college students which is lower than the numbers reported in Fisher's research. The gap between the two stems in part from the broader definitions used by Fisher which many students don't think are as serious as Fisher thinks they are. Also, per Nblund's own sources, part of the disagreement in interpretation comes from feminist opinion, which is fine to include, but does not disqualify other views. So, what I've been seeking is NPOV balance, where it belongs per the sources - with the AAU study section.Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Volunteer note 3: After an inquiry on my user talk page, I've taken a look at the discussion and added and notified three parties who have been involved in the recent discussion. I don't think that they're absolutely necessary parties to this case going forward, but they ought to be given a chance to participate if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update: VQuakr has indicated at her/his user talk page that s/he does not care to participate here, which should not affect whether or not a volunteer opens the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Participant Comment: I'm fine with this finding not being in the lede, but in the particular section related to the AAU study from where it came. However, Nblund has argued against this, saying it's common to most studies, so it would be undue to put in that section. She and Carwil refer heavily to Bonnie Fisher whom they have cited as an expert and one of the AAU study designers to support this argument. However, a direct quote from Fisher says otherwise. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” [10]. I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". However Nblund has taken the position that Fisher's plain English quote in the Washinton post is "unverified" and contradicted by Nblund's interpretation of a general statement from the study. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that Nblund is interpreting Wikipedia guidelines correctly and perhaps not discussing this in good faith.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours and to comment if requested. I will check this page at least every 24 hours. Be civil and concise. There is a widespread belief in Wikipedia that civility is encouraged but optional. It is not. It is mandatory, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Comment on content, not contributors. Will every participant please provide a short summary within the next 48 hours of what they think the issues are? If you think that RFCs, rather than moderated discussion, are in order, put that in your statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Also, do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. It is recommended that you not discuss the article at its talk page while this discussion is in progress, because comments at the talk page may not be seen here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC) First statements by editors Mattnad, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've more or less reached agreement on most of the issues here. From where I sit, it seems like the primary sticking point is over whether to present this finding in the AAU section. I think presenting it in that section is misleading, because, as I explained in this edit, this finding isn't unique to the AAU study. You cited the quote from Fisher in the Washington Post as evidence that this finding is new, but I don't think that quote is especially persuasive. EDIT: an RfC would be ideal, but I think we're fairly close to consensus here and I'm ready to see this get resolved. First, I think that quote is actually fairly ambiguous. Fisher doesn't specify what part of the finding in question hasn't been measured in the past. Second, it seems like it may have been a misquote or quoted out of context. Other sources that covered the AAU report include a very similar quote in reference to different portions of the survey. From a Minnesota paper The survey found that 11 percent of undergraduate women experienced vaginal penetration or oral sex without their "active, ongoing voluntary agreement." This rate ranged from 5 percent to 21 percent among the 27 schools. "That will stimulate a lot of discussion," said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. "We as researchers don't know a lot about this -- it hasn't been measured in the past." And here is a nearly identical quote in a story from the HuffingtonPost The AAU survey found 11.4 percent of undergraduate women and 14.8 percent of undergrad LGBTQ students at these campuses experienced sexual assault involving penetration or oral sex due to a lack of affirmative consent. "That in itself is going to stimulate a lot of discussion," said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at University of Cincinnati, and consultant at Westat, the firm that conducted the survey. "We don't, as researchers, know much about this phenomenon because it hasn't been measured in the past." The fact that other sources reproduced this quote in reference to a different survey finding suggests, to me at least, that Fisher said this, but may have said it in relation to another portion of this survey. I'm particularly skeptical that the WaPo version is accurate because Fisher herself has produced this same finding in her past work, and has written on it extensively. Third, even if Fisher was accurately quoted, we have numerous reliable sources that show that this finding is consistent with past research, and where there is conflict between sources, I think we should favor the more numerous and more reliable version. The AAU report itself says fairly explicitly that this finding is consistent with past research: "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)" And other academic sources also note that the "not serious enough to report" finding is fairly common. Nblund (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Nblund, the question is common, but in the AAU study the rate that people responded in the affirmative to "not serious enough" at 50% to 75% (depending on the type of assault or misconduct) is unheard of. By comparison the Federal Government's Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010 report found only 10.6% of respondents who had been sexually assaulted indicated they didn't report it due to " Not important enough to respondent" but it was still dominant among the other choices. This enormous gap between the AAU (50% to 75%) and for instance the Federal survey (10.6%) is why it became news and why Bonnie Fisher (your preferred expert) said they've never seen this before per the Washington Post (which is a bit more rigorous than the volunteer Huffington Post reporters). It's also why commentators have pointed it out as a sign that the AAU study is flawed in it's definitions and categorization of sexual assault. You don't want those comments in there at all and have taken them out in the past despite being in reliable sources. I will add that you want us to focus on what the AAU report's ambiguous statement "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)". However WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It's not clear exactly what they are referring to from the 2003 text. At any rate Wikipedia explicitly prefers reliable secondary sources on topics rather than primary for good reason.Mattnad (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator I had instructed the parties to be civil and concise. They have been civil but not concise. (I would rather have this than have them be concise but not civil, because that, which is too common, is a brief exchange of insults. I am satisfied that the parties are being civil.) Before we can discuss the details, we need to identify any areas of disagreement. (If we don't identify any areas of disagreement, then we can close the case.) What does each editor think needs to be changed in the article? What does each editor think needs to be kept the same in the article that the other editor wants to change? Do any of the three silent editors want to participate? It appears that there is scholarly consensus that sexual assault on campus is under-reported. So is there a question about which sources to quote, or is there a detailed disagreement about how to state the underreporting, or is it something else altogether? Second statements by editors I think the status quo is okay (first paragraph of this section), and I think Carwil's suggestion of including expanding in to a short section on non-reporting that includes criticisms like the one Mattnad cites is also reasonable -- I removed those previously because they weren't attributed in-text and weren't presented as minority viewpoints. I think the sticking point is over whether or not the stat should be included in the AAU section. This seems unhelpful to me, and I think Mattnad and I are actually in agreement that the Prevalence and Incidence section needs to be trimmed in a way that doesn't emphasize individual surveys so much. EDIT to answer the last question: 2015 AAU report found that most who don't report an assault do so because they did not think it was serious enough to report. Mattnad's view, as I understand it, is that this finding is unique and new to this report and wants to present them that way, my view is that these are consistent with previous research and should be presented as such. Nblund (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) The status quo as Nblund puts it reflects her making changes, well after the dispute started, that suit her position. I didn't stop her, but I didn't agree with the approach either. It should be noted that Fisher qualifies the "not serious enough" response as Feminist opinion, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." Fisher is not referring mainstream research here, but opinions. It's certainly not "established research" as Nblund suggested. As a compromise, I'd say we can leave Nblund's preamble in so long as we can also include the specific findings in the AAU section. I think those should be there per reliable secondary sources, including analysis of its implications by the Washington Post (with author attribution). We have multiple reliable sources commenting directly on the AAU study, noting the majority (sometimes "vast majority") of respondents "didn't think it was serious enough." These rates are very high (up to 75%) which is why so many sources picked up on it. Here are a few samples: [11],[12], [13],[14],[15],[16], [17], [18], [19] It's established practice in Wikipedia to refer to reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. In this case, I think it's fair and acceptable to include what's been said about this particular study. Nblund refers to a single author, Bonnie Fisher's general opinions from 1999 and 2003 as a justification for suppressing the details. Those dated opinions should not disqualify what's been specifically reported and discussed around the current 2015 AAU study. In my view, Nblund's desire to suppress the AAU findings is out of line with Wikipedia practice and is founded in WP:SYN. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Can you clarify whether you are disputing the facts or just disputing the rules? In other words: do you believe that this is actually a new or unique finding and wish to present it that way or do you agree with my view that this is a not new or unique finding, but you are concerned that it is novel synthesis if we note that? Also, I think we all agree that the AAU found that the overwhelming majority of non-reporting victims gave this response, and that other news outlets reported it. But do any of those sources support the argument that this is a new finding? There's a quote from Fisher, but are there any others? Nblund (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC) I'm not suggesting either of your options above. This is an editorial debate. The facts are not in dispute and I have no idea what you mean by "disputing the rules." My point is that we should include the facts as presented by reliable sources. Here's what I think you're doing: since the "not important enough" question has been part of past surveys, so you are arguing there's nothing new here, and we should not include it in the AAU section. However, I recall you are doing this because you don't want anything "that it makes the findings appear less impactful" [20] which is grounded in your opinion and not reliable sources. You also ignore the detail about the magnitude of the finding, which Fisher as originally quoted states is new ground. The Minnesota paper indicates it drew from the WP article, but then changed the context. Even if Fisher hadn't said that, multiple reliable sources have cited the stats - They are notable and well supported. I've offered a compromise - letting you include hypothetical opinions on why women might say this in the preceding section (which should be appropriate qualified). So. Are you up for it?Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) It seems like there might be a factual dispute: you said that the 50-75% finding is "very high" and "unprecedented", and argued that Fisher's quote indicates that the magnitude of the finding is new. I find this assertion puzzling, because I already pointed to three previous surveys where 50-80% of women gave this same response. If this is your reasoning, can you provide any additional reliable sources that specifically bolster the view that this is new finding? Or is the quote from Fisher the only basis you have? If you agree that this is not a new finding, can you suggest how you would avoid obscuring that fact if you cite this in the AAU subsection? Why not mention it in the subsection for the CSA or NCWSV, which found similar rates of this response? It sounds like your proposed compromise is that, in exchange for getting the thing I identified as the nub of the dispute, you will refrain from excising reliably sourced materials from a prominent expert. I don't think that's really a compromise at all since you haven't made a tenable case for removing those statements. It could make for awkward wording, but I don't see much of a problem with noting that AAU study was one of a number of surveys that found that most non-reporting victims give this response, as long as it comes in the context of a discussion of scholarly interpretations of that result. Nblund (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Your "scholarly source" refers to feminist opinion as the counterpoint and interpretation " "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." That is one view, and allowable with attribution, but not the only one. It is also far from definitive and uses the qualifiers "may merely indicate". By restricting the sources to the only ones you approve of violates NPOV. There is no reason to exclude what newspapers say about the AAU study. If you refuse to move on this, perhaps this forum is not going to work. To the moderators, it would seem that Nblund is not interested in compromise here at all.Mattnad (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC) It seems like you're mistaken about what is in the entry: the 2003 paper you're quoting from isn't what is cited in the section you're contesting, nor are the arguments about false consciousnesses or a belief that victimization is acceptable. The content cited in the entry is sourced to Fisher's 2009 book, which I quoted in the RfC here (bottom of the edit). The statements are also attributed to Fisher et. al in text, and use the term "they may reason that..." to reflect Fisher's own wording. Since the statement you're contesting wasn't in the entry to begin with, it doesn't seem like a compromise to suggest we can "leave it" in place. I haven't said we should exclude what the newspapers say or only include sources I agree with, I have that we should present the views of prominent experts, and avoid inaccurately presenting those findings as new or unique. I just suggested a way we could mention that this finding was in the AAU report while avoiding inaccurately characterizing it as a new finding. I also asked you some clarifying questions, I think it would help move things along if you would address those.Nblund (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Nblund, you previously cited Fisher as follows [21]. I'm done with this. To the moderators, Nbund has no desire to compromise. What would you recommend I do?Mattnad (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Yes Mattnad, I did cite that in a post on the talk page, but it's not in the entry and it never has been, so what relevance does it have here? I don't think you can seriously expect me to compromise about a citation that doesn't exist in the entry. Nblund (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC) You went ahead and did that despite concerns on the talk page, and did that before the RFC was closed, ignoring efforts to discuss. You're arguments shift, but the fundamentals don't change. You want only your POV.Mattnad (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC) It seems like you're citing a concern about conduct rather than a content issue, which isn't the purpose of this process. I notice that you are again re-inserting this material in to the entry. I think maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back from the brink here: there is ample evidence that you don't have consensus support for this and multiple editors have questioned your approach. Participating in this process isn't mandatory, but obtaining consensus before making edits is, and I don't think there's any chance that the method your pursuing now is going to allow you to get what you want. I think I made a pretty reasonable offer that would allow you to include this material while still avoiding portraying this finding as new, i'm willing to continue the conversation if you self-revert. Nblund (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator The back-and-forth discussion above is hard to follow. I normally say that threaded discussion is not permitted. I had forgotten to say that this time. Threaded discussion is not permitted. (That rule is not retroactive.) Address the moderator, not each other. Comment on content, not contributors. Does the real question have to do with the AAU report, and whether it is different from the other sources? I think that we all agree that there is agreement that sexual assault on campus is under-reported, but that sometimes it is considered "not worth reporting". On what points do the two editors disagree? Also, starting over, does either editor have a specific proposal for a compromise? (Also, we do not discuss conduct issues here. Often discussion of the underlying content issue may alleviate conduct issues. If either editor thinks that conduct issues are too serious to permit discussion here, then, since discussion here is optional, you may go to WP:ANI, but I encourage you to try to work out content in order to alleviate any conduct issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC) What exactly is meant by "I'm open to continuing this discussion if we restore the status quo first"? The purpose of this discussion is to decide what the article should be in the future, not whether the article is in the "wrong version" or whether a previous change needs to be reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Can I answer this here? Mattnad re-introduced the disputed material last night. I'm willing to continue if we restore it to the version that we had prior to this edit. Nblund (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors I'm open to continuing this discussion if we restore the status quo first. To answer your questions: I don't think anyone is disputing that the AAU found that most women give the "not serious enough" response, but it seems like Mattnad wants to present this finding as new and unique to the AAU. If Mattnad can provide some additional reliable sources to bolster that claim, I think that might be reasonable, but I don't think it's verifiable on the basis of what I have seen so far. That said: I think that it would be okay to mention that the AAU was one of a number of studies that found that most women who do not report a sexual assault do so because they did not think the attack was serious enough to report. I also think it would be reasonable to include a brief discussion of the interpretations of that finding offered by critics of this kind of research, and we could cite people like Stuart Taylor Jr. and Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young -- as long as those views were attributed and clearly presented as minority viewpoints held by non-experts. Nblund (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (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.

Nations and intelligence

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 維基小霸王 on 03:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Nations and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 維基小霸王 (talk · contribs) World Champion Editor (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) Dispute overview World Champion Editor add less relavent content accusing any genetic explainations to be "racism" without providing direct proof for any the relation between nations and intelligence are so. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Disccusion. How do you think we can help? I hope more editors can help to edit the article with neutral point of view. Summary of dispute by World Champion Editor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Extended content 1st of all, as one can plainly see from the above, this editor does not have an adequate grasp of English to be editing on the encylopedia. As I told him, even if his edits were not blatant racial-trolling, and unsupportable POV pushing, his prose does not even approach the level required for an English language encylopedia. 2nd of all, I simply removed his sentence fragments and added well supported and well written text reflecting the actual state of the "debate" of the community. Upon request, I imported a number of references from the J. Phillipe Rushton article, demonstrating that this theory is widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. Rushton is the most prominent and notable and relatively serious of recent scientific racists, and so, if anything I helped his case by adding Rushton, since Rushton is a more credible source than the references he linked to. Extended content this user is a single purpose account without command of English to be writing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Champion Editor (talk • contribs) Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nations and intelligence discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been very recent discussion that has escalated within a half hour to DRN with very little actual discussion between users. The Master and World Champion Editor, you both need to do Wikipedia a favour here - slow down and actually discuss the issues for maybe another day or two and include Volunteer Marek who has also been recently involved in this dispute over content in the article. The Master, you do seem to be having some difficulties with expressing yourself in English at the moment and unfortunately English Wikipedia requires basic competency in English which you seem to be showing to some degree but perhaps not yet at the level required for article editing based on the talkpage posts. It is still recommended that you try using talkpage discussion to help Wikipedia improve, if and when possible. I have also placed notices on the talk pages of World Champion Editor for you per the DRN request that filing editors let the other involved editors know about the discussion, and Volunteer Marek has been notified as well. For now, I would close this discussion pending more extensive discussion between the parties, allowing for editors to refile later if moderated discussion is required, unless other DRN Volunteers feel there has or has not been sufficient discussion for a case to be opened. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I would also remind the editors involved in this case to focus on the content, not the editor. We have another noticeboard for focussing on an editor's behaviour, on the DRN page we focus on improving content. I will "hat" the personalised comments using the {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:34, 6 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Transcendental Meditation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jdontfight on 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Transcendental Meditation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jdontfight (talk · contribs) Doc James (talk · contribs) MastCell (talk · contribs) Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page is one of some "delicate" pages on which there is often this kind of behaviour of deleting without proper arguments. Using good reliable scientific sources (medicine) (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)) should lead to some editing. But those scientific evidences are regularly deleted. On the other side, questionable sources (because it talks about meditations and yoga in general, and the concerned TM does not appear in the abstract or conclusion) are used to elaborate the argument that the scientific evidences are not reliable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No evidence of any reliable sources seems to be good enough for them. It is obvious that they just don't want any improvement of this section. I have listed some of those references of peer reviewed meta-analysis and literature review, in the last section named: "References that should not be ignored or deleted on TM page". According to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library "although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality". There is rarely such quality of sources in a discussion, but there are still continuously deleted... How do you think we can help? Wikipedia should be edited on reliable sources. When there are such sources and especially when those are scientific sources, there should be fair play recognition and not be any obstacle. This is clearly the type of situation that could damage the reputation of the wikipedia project. Summary of dispute by Doc James Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MastCell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Alexbrn Decline DR. This has not been properly discussed on the article Talk page yet (where indeed there are unanswered questions on the material in dispute). Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC) A discussion of sources in the abstract is of little use, we need to know what content is being proposed for those references to support. The complainant seems to want to make a number of claims for the therapeutic efficacy of TM. These exceptional claims will generally require very strong sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and also WP:FRIND. Thus old (> 5 years old) secondary sources in fields where we have recent reviews can be discounted, so can primary sources, blogs and pieces in poor-quality and altmed journals. Any claim that is made needs to be WP:Verifiable per the cited supporting source. The complainant has now twice tried to make this edit which is sourced to: PMID 24107199 – an altmed journal and so lacking WP:FRINDependence. PMID 18350109 – a 9-year-old source in a field with newer sources, such as: PMID 23608661 – potentially a better source (not sure if the AHA is WP:MEDRS or how due their statements are), but which does not appear to support the claim being made. Instead it says: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP. It is not certain whether it is truly superior to other meditation techniques in terms of BP lowering because there are few head-to-head studies. As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP. However, TM (or meditation techniques in general) does not appear to pose significant health risks. Additional and higher-quality studies are required to provide conclusions on the BP-lowering efficacy of meditation forms other than TM." This is rather different from the text the complainant inserted saying that "TM that has proven its efficiency to lower BP". When asked about this on the Talk page, no response has been made. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Transcendental Meditation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been sufficient and recent discussion on the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page for a DRN case to be opened. In response to Alexbrn, DRN discussion can pick-up from the talkpage discussion, including unanswered questions. Knowing this, do you still wish to withdraw from any possible discussion at the DRN? I am neither accepting nor rejecting the case for now. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I don't agree there has been any substantive discussion. The point of the dispute seems to be that the complainant wants "fair play recognition" for sources but when actually asked about these sources and their relation to the WP:PAGs, there is no response. [22] However, if this DR can accelerate the process, then I'd be content to participate. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified.The discussion is open.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I can clarify one of the points above. Editors are repeatedly removing information sourced to a 2015 meta-analysis on the effects of TM on anxiety that appeared in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Their rationale is that this is a "fringe" journal. However, this journal is explicitly allowed by the WP:MEDRS guideline. That guideline says that journals that appear on the Brandon/Hill list of core journals for a medical library make good sources for Wikipedia. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine appears on the Brandon/Hill list. Skeptic editors have also used old primary sources (Michaels 1976, Pagano 1976), have used outdated sources (Ospina has been archived by AHRQ as no longer current), and have misrepresented sources (that Goyal found TM research to be poor when 5 of the 7 studies were rated medium or high quality, that TM studies are biased when in fact the Bai review found all 12 studies to meet the Cochrane standard, that Michaels was a failed attempt to replicate Wallace 1970, etc. etc.). TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC) A fringe journal may make a good source for certain types of "in universe" information, but it isn't a WP:FRIND source for making assertions that are not shared outside that universe. Claims about therapeutic efficacy need independent secondary mainstream sources. If the claimed view has truly permeated the mainstream, it should be easy to produce mainstream source that show that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Volunteer 1st statement- Oh ugh. I just looked-at the article and current talk page and it looks like the article needs an editing spree and some templeting in regards to NPOV. As it currently appears, this article is not serving the users of Wikipedia. Where is a "===Controversy/Critics===" section? requiring pristine scientific and medical referencing goes both ways here I guess, and a strict application is going to squash criticisms, (like this :. Also, although the MOS forbids using ® sign for trademarked names with the trademarked names in articles and titles, the fact that TM, and Transcendental Meditation, among other related registered trademarks, ARE trademarked is a fact that is missing from the article which is important in my opinion. On the other hand, requiring that reliably sourced references be newer than 5 years old, too rigorous in my opinion, and the solution would be noting the date of the refs in the cites and/or article, and users know how to form their own opinions with that. Question: Are we applying MERS standards for a topic where we should not be? Should this be a business article? TeeVeeed (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) WP:MEDRS covers "medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine". The 5-year guideline applies to medical sources in an actively-research field (as this is). Any business aspects are not covered by MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC) References Volunteer reply-correction noted, thank-you. MEDRS. yes. "...including those on alternative medicine.", I agree and understand that medical or scientific claims should be rigorously referenced according to MEDRS standards. (I'm still not committed about requiring <5years) But, I guess my question is should TM® even be treated as "alternative medicine", or as a business, or even as a religion? The article as it now appears is treating the entire topic as-if it is some type of alternative medicine, which gives it UNDUE, and is unbalanced overall. TeeVeeed (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by KBAegis on 01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit not supported by source (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved KBAegis (talk · contribs) CFredkin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've had an edit I made removed multiple times by another editor. I'd like to know how to proceed. The other editor is simply removing the text rather than altering it in any meaningful way. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've requested for him to make sense of the standard he's applying and how it differs from simply whitewashing. I've also proposed that the text get altered rather than simply removed. He just removes it How do you think we can help? Please weigh in, let us know how to proceed, and protect the page if necessary. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know how I can improve my behavior. Thanks! Summary of dispute by CFredkin The edit in question is not supported by the source provided, and it is blatantly POV. The article is a WP:BLP, and "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Since KBAeigs is presenting himself as new to Wikipedia, he/she may not be aware of policies regarding verifiability and neutrality, particularly with regards to BLP's (although I've provided links to the relevant articles in the Talk discussion). Perhaps he/she will be more amenable to coaching from other editors.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I'll also note that I've suggested possible alternative language based on the source in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have notified the other editor. Waiting for response from the other editor, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Both parties are cautioned that they are close to 3RR, and so are advised that any form of dispute resolution, including here, is to be preferred over edit-warring. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this case, pending a response from the second party. /wia /tlk 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Note to participants: I have opened the case and will provide an opening statement shortly. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC) First round of statements First statement by volunteer moderator Good day, I will be moderating the discussion. I'll ask that each party (myself included) make a point of checking in every 48 hours, that discussion here be centred on the content at issue, and that no party (myself included) edit the article in question while the discussion is underway. There appear to be two issues at play: Should CISA-related content appear in the article? If so, how should it be worded? The proposed wording was In 2015, after being elected as a senator for Colorado, he hid the previously rejected CISA legislation in an omnibus spending bill along with Sens. Jim Inhofe and Thom Tillis. This raises two subissues: Is "hid" the appropriate word for CISA's inclusion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act? The extent of The Intercept's discussion of this is a reference to "omnibus spending bill that included a version of CISA". Can Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis be said to be responsible for including CISA within the spending bill? The Intercept article refers to Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis in three ways: as "lawmakers", "legislators" and "senators". @KBAegis: you are concerned that failure to mention the CISA content constitutes whitewashing. Given Wikipedia's original research policy prohibiting content that "reach[es] or impl[ies] a conclusion not stated by the sources", would your concerns be allayed if a sentence (or sentences) were included, phrased to describe exactly what reliable sources have said? @CFredkin: you state that the sentence is not supported by The Intercept article and runs afoul of verifiability, neutrality and biographies of living persons policies. If you're okay with some CISA-related content in the article, could you suggest a phrasing that you think would comply with these policies? /wiae /tlk 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Per TransporterMan's note below, I will be closing this case as abandoned at 1900 hours UTC tomorrow if there is no response. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by KBAegis First statement by CFredkin As I stated previously, based on the source, I think we can reasonably say that Gardner voted for the omnibus budget bill, which contained the CISA provision.CFredkin (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Coordinator's note I rather suspect that KBAegis may have left the encyclopedia, having only 16 edits. I'd recommend that if s/he has not responded to the ping I've given here by 19:00 UTC on January 6 that this case be closed as abandoned, subject to being refiled (not reopened) only on a commitment to respond within 48 hours to every inquiry posted here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) 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.

Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dan Eisenberg on 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#College campuses section has too much of a newspaper quality to it (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dan Eisenberg (talk · contribs) ScottyNolan (talk · contribs) N.F.B.R (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is disagreement about whether several recent anti-semitic incidents should be included in the college section of this article. Some feel it helps to make the points of the article, while I believe this is unenyclopedic (wikipedia is not a newspaper) and contrary to general wikipedia standards. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page and citing wikipedia policies--but resolution does not seem to be forthcoming after almost a month and I don't feel discussions are proving the most productive. How do you think we can help? It would be helpful for an experienced editor familiar with wikipedia policies and norms to weigh in on this. Summary of dispute by ScottyNolan For my opinion, examples of certain incidents (some have been already erased) are important to brighten and point on several trends in the issue of antisemitism in US campuses. Summary of dispute by N.F.B.R Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the talk page. One of the other editors was notified; I have notified the other editor. Waiting for statements from the other editors since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottyNolan Poeticbent talk 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 24-hour closing notice: If the other primary editor involved, ScottyNolan, does not respond by this time tomorrow by providing a Summary of Dispute, above, this case will be closed by a volunteer as futile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator) @TransporterMan: I'm a little confused? ScottyNolan has provided a summary of the dispute, albeit rather short. N.F.B.R has not responded, but that account seems to be not very active (only 2 edits ever made on it) and I would think we could proceed without N.F.B.R? Thanks. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC) You're right on both counts, my apologies, but if N.F.B.R. is eliminated then we have a discussion which only has one edit by one of the participants. That would seem not to satisfy that there have been extensive discussion on the article talk page, as required by this noticeboard. Having said that, I'm going to withdraw the closing notice and leave this open to see if a volunteer cares to take it. If none does, it will be closed as stale in two or three dates. Should that occur, you might want to consider a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I will repeat the usual ground rules. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I advise against discussion on the talk page while discussion is in progress here, because while this discussion is open, this discussion should be the discussion of record. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues, and the objective is to clarify the issues so as to resolve or compromise them. Comment on content, not contributors. I will check this page every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours. (Failure to provide requested statements or answers in 48 hours may cause the discussion to fail.) The first question is: Will each editor please explain, briefly (be civil and concise) whether they think that any changes to the article are needed, and, if so, why, or, if they do not want changes but other editors do, explain why they think that the article is all right? In particular, if anyone thinks that there is a "newspaper" quality to the section, please explain what that means. Does that mean too much detailed focus on individual incidents, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Thanks for your help Robert McClenon. I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Argument from authority

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MjolnirPants on 22:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Argument from authority (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) FL or Atlanta (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I pointed out that an important caveat (that the appeal to authority is not always a fallacy) stated by every reliable source used in the article, as well as every other reliable source I could find is not reflected in the article. Another editor has begun arguing his or her interpretation of the sources is the correct one, implying that the caveat should be left out. The other editor seems unwilling to consider WP policy, or good practices, and has -so far- ignored the fact that this caveat does indeed appear withing all the sources, continuing to argue their interpretation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Exhaustive discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Having an impartial point of view weigh in on the matter. Someone willing to more patiently explain WP policy and the reasons for it to this editor so that I can improve the article without starting an edit war. Summary of dispute by FL or Atlanta I believe the sources do not disagree with the page, which specifically states the appeal is a fallacy in logical, argumentative, or scientific reasoning. Things like doctor's visits that some sources and the other editor talk about are outside of the relevant scope of the article, which is about the appeal as an argument. Further, despite claims on the talk that appeals to authority make a presumption that the statement is true, the page lists multiple examples which show clearly that this is not the case, and includes a reliable source which explicitly states whether or not we should presume an idea is true is independent of who believes it. We have another speaking of nonreliance on appeals to authority as being something that "liberated" science, and so on. I believe the confusion ultimately results from a misunderstanding on the other editor's part about what constitutes "authority" - see the discussion on my Talk where he states that alarm clocks carry their manufacturer's authority for example. All the sources discussing appeals to authority mean it in the sense of, essentially, "appeal to an expert". However the other editor seems to view the subject of the article as any appeal to anything's reliability in any context whatsoever. I'd also like to point out that progress is still being made on the page as a result of the ongoing discussions. An agreeable consensus will be reached given time, but the other editor appears to lose patience very quickly, as can also be seen on my Talk and on the page's Talk. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Argument from authority discussion Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The second editor was improperly notified on their talk page, I will provide them with a link and take the case once they have replied. TheLogician112 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC) My specific concerns are as follows: Every source I have been able to find has made it clear -either explicitly by directly stating as much, or implicitly by including caveats which make it clear- that an appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is an expert in the subject in question. It is also sometimes noted that the statement made by the authority must not be contentious in that field, as well, but that is generally an edge case which doesn't change my point. I have argued for the inclusion of this very important bit of information, which FL or Atlanta has opposed and argued against in every way possible. My arguments so far were that; Education, scientific publication and the advancement of knowledge all rest upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than incorrect, and that this assumption is demonstrably true. Wikipedia is built by appealing to legitimate authorities, and it would be nonsensical to have an article undermining the very process which lends that article authority (which would lead to a logical paradox, as the tactic by which it undermines its own authority would, itself, be undermined). If this were true, this article would essentially be a very wordy version of "This statement is false." FL or Atlanta seems to implicitly grasp this truth themselves, as they have appealed to a number of authorities in the discussion. There is an important distinction between soundness and validity. Appeals to authority are always valid, but only unsound when the authority is not legitimate, when the authority asserts a contentious position, or when the conclusion is stated with absolute certainty. A number of heuristics and bits of advice on dealing with and making appeals to authority are being confused by FL or Atlanta with formal aspects of the definition of the term. At least one other editor has expressed unreserved agreement with my position and attempted to make some of the same points as I, only to be reverted. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. FL or Atlanta is quite happy to revert any change they disagree with under the pretence of "leaving the article alone until this is settled", while simultaneously making numerous changes to the article. This is ownership and is not acceptable behaviour for an editor. There is one source from a professional martial artist with an undergraduate degree in History which is (or was, the number of changes FL or Atlanta has made to the article since the discussion began makes it difficult to keep track) being used to support an explicit claim which is in opposition to the caveat in question. I have disputed this as a reliable source due to the standards given in Wikipedia's policy (note that this is a source whom I otherwise respect as an expert in the field of Historical European Martial Arts, and have been subscribed to on Youtube for some time now). Fl or Atlanta has responded by declaring the author a 'historian' and a valid expert by fiat, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is another source, introduced during the discussion by FL or Atlanta which states that the scientific method allowed us to stop gaining all our knowledge by appealing to authorities, which he used to support the statement that an appeal to authority (necessarily, it is implied) results in a logical fallacy. I have contended that this is synthesis and should be removed for this reason, and because -like the previous source- it does not meet the standards provided in WP:V, in that the author is not an expert in logic, philosophy, argumentation or education (the author is a computer scientist, and could be considered an expert in computer sciences or possibly mathematics). A reliable source was removed by FL or Atlanta after I quoted where it agreed with me. He contended that it was not reliable, without giving any specific reason why, despite the site it was from being used un-contentiously in almost every other WP article on logical fallacies. Using an advanced Google search, as well as Wikipedia's own search function, I have been unable to find any controversy about the reliability of this source outside of this discussion. FL or Atlanta's argument has essentially been that the caveat should not be included, because he interprets other passages in some of those sources to be refuting it. I have attempted to explain both WP policy (with regards to verifiability, not truth), and the logic which resolves the seeming contradiction between his interpretation and this caveat (in the difference between soundness and validity of a logical argument, as well as there being an important distinction between logical absolutes and reasonable certainty), but they seem more interested in winning the argument than finding common ground or achieving any sort of mutual understanding. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) In response to part of FL or Atlanta's dispute summary: "I believe the confusion ultimately results from a misunderstanding on the other editor's part about what constitutes "authority" - see the discussion on my Talk where he states that alarm clocks carry their manufacturer's authority for example." I did not in any way suggest that the clock has authority, derived or otherwise. What I did was to abstract the rules from the appeal to authority and use them to construct an argument by example that might be easier for you to understand. That you did not understand it is regrettable, but does not indicate any lack of comprehension on my part. In truth, I believe it is you who lack knowledge of rhetoric and formal logic, else you likely would have understood my example. "I'd also like to point out that progress is still being made on the page as a result of the ongoing discussions." Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I'd like to respond by pointing out that you have reverted every edit I've made, and made several edits I explicitly disagreed with and provided rationale for. That's not progress, that's ownership. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderator I will be moderating this discussion. It appears that the issue has to do with the addition or removal of particular text having to do with cases that are not fallacies. Is that correct? Also, will the editors restate briefly what the disputed material is, and why it should be added or removed? Please be civil and concise in all comments. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long comments often do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. (I have had to hide some discussion that commented on contributors.) I expect every participant to check on this page at least every 48 hours. I will check on this page at least every 24 hours. (I will close this discussion if questions are not answered within 48 hours.) Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. Discuss the article here, not on the talk page, while this discussion is in progress (because discussion at the talk page may be overlooked). I see that the article has been tagged as non-neutral. Is that because of the issues being discussed here? Also, I see that some of the recent editing of the article was from an IP address. Was that one of the participants editing while logged out? If so, please remember to log in. If it was not, then the unregistered editor will be invited to participate in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Issues about article ownership behavior should not be addressed at this noticeboard. This noticeboard discusses content only, not conduct. Participation in discussion here is voluntary, but focuses only on content. If an editor wants to address article ownership behavior, they may address it at WP:ANI, but in that case the discussion here will be ended. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Starting from the basics, an argument from authority is a form of argument. It is not itself a fallacy. This is an important distinction which is made in every reliable source I have been able to find on the subject, including the sources used in the article. The article, however, seems to recognize this only in the most technical sense. The wording of the lead, and the examples chosen all imply quite strongly that an appeal to authority is always a fallacy. In fact, there is no text at all in the article which outlines what a sound appeal to authority looks like, and the section on logic and rhetoric flatly contradicts the notion that a sound appeal to authority can exist. I posted to the page a while back asking if there was a specific reason for this. One or two other editors commented before FL or Atlanta began posting. The argument between us has -thus far- centered on whether an appeal to authority is necessarily a fallacy, despite my efforts to focus the discussion on the fact that no reliable source claims it is, yet the article strongly implies that it is. I came here seeking an impartial view, because several time, the other use has seemed to greatly misunderstand WP policy regarding sources, original research, and editing behavior. I'm seeking someone to help bridge the gap of understanding, as nothing I say seems to be getting through. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Close the discussion. I do not trust this moderator. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:57, 7 January 2016 (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.

Template:Forbes Magazine Lists

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Fireflyfanboy on 00:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template:Forbes Magazine Lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fireflyfanboy (talk · contribs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Despite posting on talk pages and investigation that the lists do properly fall under fair use with only a few edits needed to put them in line with that, user:justlettersandnumbers keeps deleting lists, refusing to engage on the talk page and acting unilaterally. Despite conversations on their personal talk pages asking for more perspective and research on the matter, user continues to act unilaterally and avoid proper channels for discussion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Writing on their talk page multiple times How do you think we can help? Resolving the copyright issue for these Forbes lists, and asking user:Justlettersandnumbers to engage more in dispute resolution in the future Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:Forbes Magazine Lists discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dschslava on 23:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dschslava (talk · contribs) Erik (talk · contribs) 70.190.188.48 (talk · contribs) Betty Logan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is currently a dispute on whether the film 'Twelve Years a Slave' should be included amongst the list of examples of the white savior narrative in film. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page of article. How do you think we can help? Extra opinions would be nice. Summary of dispute by Erik 12 Years a Slave was added to white savior narrative in film because there were reliable sources discussing how the film had a white savior. The IP editor personally believes that the sources are wrong and that there can only be a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. While the film may be different from others in this regard, the list's film entry actually specifically discusses the scope in which the white savior appears: "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as a cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." Where applicable, some other films on the list have similar clarifying language, such as The Man Who Would Be King being ironic but still portraying the natives as in need of a white savior, or the McFarland, USA director's attempted counter-argument. It was also argued that 12 Years a Slave was much more about slavery than about a white savior. This is absolutely true, but the elements are not mutually exclusive. The film article itself should not devote a higher word count to discussing the white savior over discussing slavery. That's why the white savior narrative in film is only linked in the "See also" section as a tangentially related topic. Within the white savior article, though, 12 Years a Slave is worth listing as part of the filmography. It is by no means the strongest example, but it is an example nonetheless, and appropriate to include since it is verifiable through reliable sources. (And it is only at the top of the list because the films are listed alphabetically.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC) McCoy, Dorian L.; Rodricks, Dirk J. (2015). "Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations". ASHE Higher Education Report. 41 (3). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-11203-7. Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Above is a reliable source that retrospectively reports on the criticism at the time. It refers to multiple commentators identifying the white savior in the film. This does not mean it invalidates 12 Years a Slave being a quality film about slavery. Again, the elements of slavery and white savior are not mutually exclusive. Praise is not a reason to exclude a film; several films on the list are well-praised but are also identified as having a white savior. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 70.190.188.48 My problem with having 12 Years a Slave as an example of having a white savior is that it ignores the very criticism that people have with this trope, which is that a piece of work that is essentially about the struggles of people of color against racism is all about some white person helping said people of color. You can't just stretch the definition to just mean "white guy helps non-white guy"; for most people, the white savior has to be a white protagonist, or at the very least the deuteragonist, who helps out the non-white character(s) who are struggling under a system that is either blatantly racist like Jim Crow or Apartheid, or "merely" has the undertones of racism, like the poverty-stricken areas of the inner city or a third-world country. I am not saying that because a work is pointing out the problems of its white savior narrative it should not be an example in this article; I am saying the white savior just doesn't exist! I cannot be the only person that has a problem with 12 Years a Slave, a film that has been praised to death for not only showing the brutality of slavery, but also for showing it from a slave's point-of-view, being included in a list of movies that has a white savior narrative. And I especially don't like how the creator of the article has full control over it and denies having other people have a say in it, and how they think that because they found three people who did not like the movie and for some reason thinks it has a white savior, this automatically cancels out the hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Betty Logan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. We have various policies which govern content. It is irrelevant if an editor disagrees with the existence of such a trope; it has been extensively writen about and satisifes notability, and even gained unanimous support in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film. The policies which are applicable here are WP:Verfiability and WP:WEIGHT. Inclusion and exclusion should only be subject to sourced commentary, not to arguments put forward by editors; this is one of Wikipedia's fundamental core policies. I am of the opinion that this article should not take a supportive view of the trope but a balanced one. Twelve Years a Slave is included in the list because reliable sources have identified it as exhibiting the trope per WP:Verfiability. If a reliable source puts forward a challenge then in the interest of taking a balanced view of the trope then I absolutely agree that this challenge should be fully documented in the article. If there are "hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior" then in principle I agree this cancels out a minority held opinion per WP:WEIGHT. I stipulated on the article talk page that challenges to content must be via reliably sourced counter-arguments, but no sources have been forthcoming. Until there are I don't see how there can be any "resolution". Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm UY Scuti and I'm taking this case case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Before getting into our discussions, let me point out some basic guidelines to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator Please correct me if I'm wrong. This dispute is circulating on whether to include Twelve Years a Slave in the article White savior_narrative_in_film, right? If so, Erik has provided a source (and two other in the article) supporting that the film indeed has a White savior trope.. Content in Wikipedia are to be reliably sourced and thus verifiable, which IMO is satisfied by the sources that is given here and are used in the article itself. 70.190.188.48, are you disputing the source(s)? Do you have sources stating otherwise? If multiple sources say the film has the said trope, the trope is there regardless of the savior being a protagonist (or) deuteragonist. Are there any additions to the above said dispute? To resolved the dispute asap and peacefully, I'd like to ask the editors (@Dschslava, Erik, 70.190.188.48, and Betty Logan:) to keep it concise and civil and to direct your comments to me. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Follow on statements @UY Scuti: I think that you summed up the dispute quite well. Nothing to add from me. @70.190.188.48:, the ball is in your court. Dschslava (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @UY Scuti: I believe the IP editor is arguing that the film should only be listed if it has a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. It is something that would be interesting to debate outside Wikipedia, but it is still a generalist argument that has no weight in sourcing. I've been fine with renaming the article since 12 Years a Slave isn't a "white savior narrative" per se but instead has the white savior trope or element or whatever we want to call it in the film's denouement, but that didn't appear to bite. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: This case will be general closed if the IP editor (primary and essential for this case) doesn't make his case in 48 hours. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 17:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @Erik: So you admit that 12 Years a Slave isn't a white savior narrative? Then why are you so adamant on keeping it as an example? For the last time, I am not advocating for your article "white savior narrative in film" to change its name; I am only advocating for the removal of 12 Years a Slave as an example of a "white savior narrative in film"! If are really that adamant on keeping 12 Years a Slave in your article that you want to change the title, go ahead, but you can't just go "while the film mostly focus on Solomon Northup" when the title of your article says "white savior narrative in film". Also, I think I have made it very clear that I believe that there is such a thing as a white savior narrative. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I do not mind the article title being changed so the scope would then be more all-encompassing. The article title isn't something set in stone. I probably originally named it "white savior narrative in film" because sources did not always write "white savior film" (except for Hughey's book), they talked about the "white savior" in this film and that film. "Narrative" was only a descriptive plug. It could be "trope" instead, or the article title could just be "white savior in film". I had thought you were insisting that the film needed to match the article title, but you had continued to argue generally that "white savior" is only appropriate as a full-fledged narrative and not as a key trope that appears at the end of a film. This is not supported by the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, I should probably just kept the discussion to my main problem with the film's inclusion which is that the film is not a white savior narrative. I still don't agree that the film has a white savior, but since there are sources that claim that Brad Pitt's character Bass is a white savior, had the article just have the title "white savior in film", I would like to think that I would not be this harsh in its inclusion, no matter how much I think that sources supporting it just want to contradict the majority of the people praising the film. But again, I am not advocating a title change. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @70.190.188.48: First thing's first. Please comment only on the content, any further violations and I'll close this case as such. Coming to the point, looks like there is a consensus to move the article to a new title? @Dschslava, Erik, and Betty Logan: Move article to a new title? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 11:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) As the IP editor said, "But again, I am not advocating a title change," meaning that the article title is only incidental to their belief that the "white savior" in film has to be a full-fledged narrative and nothing else. Betty also said here that she would not favor changing the title. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC) The title is fine given the scope of the article. The IP is seemingly disputing that Brad Pitt fulfils the function of a "white savior" within the capacity of his role, but it's basically a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. Editors are expected to base their arguments on reliable sources, and so far the IP has not put forward such sources while Erik has. Personally I don't think dispute resolution will resolve this issue, because it expects the involved parties to come to an understanding. The content is reliably sourced, so the IP has three reponses as I see it: i) Head over to the reliable sources noticeboard and have the sources ruled invalid; ii) Produce reliable sources that present a counter-argument, and then that gives the dispute reosultion process something to resolve; iii) Begin an RFC and argue that Erik's sources present a WP:FRINGE point of view and let the community determine if they do. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I see that moving the article to a new title is out of question. @70.190.188.48: On what areas of the source(s) in the article or some other source(s) are you basing your argument that the film doesn't have a narrative? I couldn't find something in the source that cherry picks the film as not having a white savior narrative and having a white savior in film. Rather, the sources portray the film as having a white savior narrative.. Are you indeed disputing the source(s)? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC) YES! For last time, I am NOT disputing the existence of the white savior narrative; I disputing the idea that 12 Years a Slave is an example of it! In the very first source of your article,Erik, the author specifically states the "white savior" film as a "genre in which a white messianic character saves a lower- or working-class, usually urban or isolated, nonwhite character from a sad fate" [23]. It is clear that he is inferring that the "white savior" is the main focus of the film. How can you write an article about "white savior narrative in film" and be clueless of the main key criticism of such works? When most people are complaining about the white savior narrative, they are complaining about how a film about non-white character(s) struggling to get by, still manages to find a way to centered on the white guy. Again, I think it is important that we have articles like this on Wikipedia, but it does not do us any favors to educate people of the existence of the white savior narrative when the first film on the list (and I know it's only because of alphabetization) is a film that has been accused of pushing a white guilt agenda by racist idiots. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) "...a film that has been accused of pushing a white guilt agenda by racist idiots." And there we have it. Do we really need to continue this discussion when the editor thinks like this? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Are you really accusing me as being one of those racists who have opposed the very existence your article since the beginning? Are your reading comprehension that bad that you think I myself believe that the film has a white agenda? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE WHITE SAVIOR NARRATIVE EXIST. MY MAIN REASON WHY I WANT TO REMOVE 12 Years a Slave IS BECAUSE THE FILM CENTERS ON THE BLACK GUY. HAD THE FILM BEEN A WHITE SAVIOR NARRATIVE THE ENTIRE MOVIE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ABOUT BRAD PITT GOING THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS OF FREEING SOLOMON NORTHUP (WHOSE DECADE OF ENSLAVEMENT BY THAT POINT WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING MORE THAN EXPOSITION VIA DIALOGUE) AND THE MOVIE CONSTANTLY BEATING YOU OVER THE HEAD ABOUT HOW GREAT HE IS FOR DOING SO. Are you really so determined to keep 12 Years a Slave as your example that you ignore the very thing that people complain about whenever the "white savior narrative" is brought up? How are you able to read your sources (other than the ones used to justify 12 Years a Slave's inclusion), and not picked up the numerous times the author complains about the white-centrism of a film that is supposedly about the struggles of people of color [24]? @70.190.188.48: Please calm down and your all caps is uncalled for. 8 comments up you said, I still don't agree that the film has a white savior and now you've said I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE WHITE SAVIOR NARRATIVE EXIST. adding more ambiguity. That aside, we understand what you're trying to tell. You want the film to be removed from the article 'cause you believe that the film's main plot isn't on the white savior. Okay. Now, again, what part of the three given sources support your fact? From what I can see, the sources explain the film (means the whole film) as having a white savior trope and not the particular portion of the film having a trope and (or) the film on whole isn't a white savior film. Unless you base your comments on a reliable source (limiting to the ones that discuss about this film), you're doing a original research. And from now, you'll have to direct your comments only to me civilly and on the content, violating which I'll close this case. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 16:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC) ...Okay. You want me to use the very three sources Erik has cited, even after I have numerously criticized said sources for bending the definition of the "white savior film". Is that it? You don't want me to use other sources, including the ones used by Erik for his/her article, that had mention THE WHITE-CENTRIST THEME THAT IS COMMON IN THESE WHITE SAVIOR MOVIES. Can I asked you a question? Am I the only person in this discussion who isn't white? 70.190.188.48 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @70.190.188.48: I'm sure that Scuti means for you to support your claims with reliable sources, not just those that Erik provided. What's more, I can confidently assure you that you are not the sole non-white in this discussion. Dschslava (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @70.190.188.48: We need reliable sources which discuss this film not just any white savior film. If you're disputing the source(s), we'll have to close this and move over to the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 16:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: This case will be general closed in 24 hours if the IP editor (@70.190.188.48:) fails to respond in the time frame. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 08:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hello. First off, I would like to thank Dschslava for conforming that I'm not the only non-white person in this conversation. I got to be honest, I feel really uncomfortable in explaining to a bunch of what I presume to be white people how 12 Years a Slave does not fit into most people's definition of the white savior narrative, only to be ignored. I don't want to accuse anybody of "whitesplaining" (I know it's mostly me having a hard time trying to convey what I'm thinking), but still. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC) That's nice, but 70.190.188.48, could you answer the questions that the mod raised? Dschslava (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Okay. First off, yes I am disputing the sources used by Erik to justify adding 12 Years a Slave in their list of "white savior narrative in film", specifically these three below (my reasons for dispute in parentheses): Berlatsky, Noah (January 17, 2014). "12 Years a Slave: Yet Another Oscar-Nominated 'White Savior' Story". The Atlantic. Retrieved May 14, 2014. (If we are going to source the Atlantic, why aren't we sourcing this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/10/the-searing-visceral-em-12-years-a-slave-em/280672/) by Christopher Orr (a.k.a. the actual person who gets paid by the magazine to review movies for them, and has a history of film criticism under his belt)? Is it because Orr only labeled Brad Pitt's character as a deus ex machina and makes no mention of a "white savior narrative" in his review that you had to use Berlatsky? Who in addition of having no background in film, judging by articles such as (http://randomnerds.com/star-trek-needs-to-go-beyond-captain-kirk-white-manspreader/) and (http://www.ravishly.com/2015/11/17/star-wars-force-awakens-disappoints-lupita-nyong%E2%80%99os-character-computer-generated) also possess the typical far-left-without-the-advocating-of-the-destruction-of-the-capitalist-system view that seem to plague today's progressive websites.) Goff, Keli (May 4, 2014). "Can 'Belle' End Hollywood's Obsession with the White Savior?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved May 14, 2014. (I got to be honest, out of the three sources, this one is the one that have the least problem with. Yes, the author also has no background in film, but looking at the author's archive there's nothing for me to claim that the author represents a fringed view. But again, if we are going to cite The Daily Beast, shouldn't we cite the article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/31/12-years-a-slave-starring-chiwetel-ejiofor-and-michael-fassbender-is-mesmerizing.html) that written by the guy who was hired to write about movies (Marlow Stern, who had written for a movie magazine at one point) and not the article that reads more like an advertisement for Belle? Oh right, because Stern went out of his way to tell Steven Spielberg (whose two films, Amistad and Lincoln, are on the same white savior narrative in film list) "this is how you capture slavery onscreen".) McCoy, Dorian L.; Rodricks, Dirk J. (2015). "Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations". ASHE Higher Education Report 41 (3). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-11203-7. "Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such." (What the hell is this? Of all the things you could have quoted in this citation from this book, WHY DID YOU PICK THE SENTENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SLAPPED WITH HAD IT BEEN WRITTEN ON WIKIPEDIA? At the very least I can say, at least this source presumably talks about the racial theories developed by people who have backgrounds in film.) 70.190.188.48 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2016 (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.

Talk:MLB Rivalries

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 68.192.150.203 on 06:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:MLB Rivalries (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved C.Fred (talk · contribs) bagumba (talk · contribs) HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs) Dispute overview New content is being immediately removed from the page despite efforts by IP editors to cite correct sources in the content Have you tried to resolve this previously? Warned users the may be blocked for edit warring How do you think we can help? Advise that editors, especially experienced ones, not to assume bad faith or assume the user is blocked and respect anon editors Summary of dispute by C.Fred Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by bagumba Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HJ_Mitchell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:MLB Rivalries discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)#Quote

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 5.64.229.132 on 20:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? The issue has been discussed on the talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)#Quote (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Makeandtoss (talk · contribs) Number 57 (talk · contribs) Tanbircdq (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Disagreement about whether quotes made by the subject with full context cited from independent, reliable secondary sources can be added to the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third opinion request[25]. How do you think we can help? Form a consensus of whether the content can be included or not. Summary of dispute by Makeandtoss Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Number 57 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tanbircdq Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)#Quote discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Boruch Baum on 01:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Boruch Baum (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Dispute overview What's going on: There are actually two disputes in parallel. The other is on the same talk page, one section up, "Debresser revert of 00:02, 25 December 2015". A direct link may fail, because I put a wikilink in the section title. I thought I was conducting a reasonable discussion, with a detailed response, but what I get in response from the correspondent is blanket reverts, a feeling that consensus means "his way", and being called a vulgar name. My attempt to work towards a middle ground failed. What has me particularly bothered was how quickly and extremely the correspondent escalated to vulgarism. What's the issue: 1] The size of the organization; 2] how to measure the size of the organization; 3] is it the largest; 4] are its outreach efforts "agressive" and "effective"; 5] is it known primarily because of its outreach efforts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Backing off, not escalating or responding to personal attacks and the use of vulgarisms. Looking at the article revision history, I see that much of what the correspondent contributes are reverts, and I'm thinking that he's emotional and personal about keeping the article just his way. How do you think we can help? 1] Calm down the environment 2] Introduce consensus as more than just a one-on-one issue. 3] I think all the issues are straightforward and simple. They could be resolved by people who are not expert in the particular subject. You could introduce your own opinions into the discussion / consensus, or invite others to do so. 4] Not to get dramatic, but I see the correspondent has now been active on edits I made on another, unrelated subject, tractate, and am at doubts if this is the beginning of some minor stalking. Summary of dispute by Debresser The discussion on the talkpage is only 2 posts by Boruch Baum and two post by me, each of mine a reply to his. I asked precise questions in my second post, to which Boruch Baum has not replied. I think it is far to early to ask for dispute resolution. Even if the discussion were longer, and Boruch Baum would have answered by questions in defense of his edit, a first good step would be asking editors at WT:JUDAISM for their input. As far as the behavioral issue goes, WP:BRD says clearly that once reverted, consensus should be established before making another edit, but Boruch Baum thinks that he should edit before establishing consensus. That seems to be his general attitude here on Wikipedia. That is also part of the problem, but if he is now willing to discuss first, which his coming here seems to imply, then that is a step forward. Robert McClenon, I have no problem with you managing the proceedings here, since I have no problems with how you handled the other conflict between Boruch Baum and me: we were wrong, you reported us, that's the way things should be. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. The filing editor appears to have introduced a reference to a non-existent page as well as to the subject page. I will be removing the incorrect reference. The responsibility to notify the other editor belongs to the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC) I'd like to add that I'm having the same issue with Debresser (talk · contribs) on another page. He is an aggressive and unilateral reverter, assumes his reverts are automatically consensus, and accuses anybody of another opinion as being an edit warrior. He engages in ad hominem attacks easily. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - I will be recusing from this case because of a previous involvement with these same editors who don't like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Rocket League#Platform

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Arwineap on 19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Rocket League#Platform (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Template talk:Infobox video game Users involved Arwineap (talk · contribs) Lordtobi (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is a dispute over what content should be included in the platform section of video game's infobox; specifically whether the platform section should list announced and/or released platforms. Have you tried to resolve this previously? After a couple edits back and forth; there's been some discussion on the talk page but I think both parties agree it's not going anywhere. How do you think we can help? I think at this point we just need an uninvolved party to catch up with our discussions and give us an idea of what the appropriate policy should be. Summary of dispute by Lordtobi Given user, Arwineap, has started removing officially to-be-released announced platforms OS X and Linux from given article, Rocket League. Both platforms have multiply been stated to have ports in development, just like Xbox One, which also has not been released yet but unreleatedly did not come to Arwineap's attention. Fact is that the "platforms=" tag in {{Infobox video game}} serves for platforms on which the game has officially been released or announced, if not canceled. And this is just the case. I have, over a longer discussion over on Rocket League's talk page, tried to explain why it is correct what is said about OS X and Linux (and also Xbox One). But I was yet again presented with another answer dealing with their own opinion about "why it can be but is not yet". I respect that given person is new to Wikipedia, but they should not try to get through their personal thougts or opinions about a certain topic which has been explainedly disproven. Lordtobi (✉) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC) The discussion went as stated in the dispute above, Arwineap started removing OS X and Linux from the platforms= tag of {{Infobox video game}}, which was reverted twice by Dissident93 and the last one by myself, warning about the ongoing edit war. It was taken to the discussion on the Rocket League talk page, where I again explained why given user is wrong, which lead to a discussion about "announced platforms not being part of the computing platform article", which is nonsense. I replied with the conventions and guidelines given by the template itself, but all Arwineap did was denying. I was reissuing the same statement all over the discussion, trying to explain how Wikipedia works because he seemed like a new user, but got about the same, ignorant and redundant answer again and again. It was finally taken here nonsensely by Arwineap, until Dissident93 turned up to also regard the same reason of Arwineap's wrongness, which gave nothing but same answer again. As I looked into the template once more, I saw that it was actually not stated clearly, but still was what everyone was using on every page (except for Goat Simulator, which has had the same issue by Arwineap back in 2014, also for OS X and Linux), so I tried to clarify but that was undone by Czar, so I put it up on the template's takl page, where I only got one answer: The same redundant answer, again by Arwineap, why it would be "bad for the Linux gaming community" and personal opinions they try to cover as facts. A later answer by Dissident93 gave the agreement with the statement of the clarification. I had reached out to undo-er Czar for a statement, but received no answer so far. And this is basically where it was left. It saw no further activity by Arwineap except for and excessively unneeded comment again by Arwineap on the Rocket League talk page, but no answer or edit neither on this page, nor on the template talk page, which is why I have to do the write-down right now. I tried to remove this discussion as it was pure nonsense and this is the really wrong place for it (as issued by Czar below), but was reverted as that is "not my job", but then, I wonder, who's job is it to remove pure nonsense? Lordtobi (✉) 16:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Rocket League#Platform discussion Volunteer note: I'm neither taking this case or opening it for discussion, but merely noting that discussion and notice are adequate. We're waiting at this point for a volunteer to take the case. response from the other editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) There has been additional discussion and additional parties joining in at Template talk:Infobox video game; if a DRN volunteer takes this case, those additional parties may need to be added here, but the issue may be resolved by consensus at that forum. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC) We commonly rectify these sorts of questions at the talk pages of either Template talk:Infobox video game or WT:VG czar 21:03, 1 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Panagiotis Kone

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DevilWearsBrioni on 10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Panagiotis Kone (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs) Alexikoua (talk · contribs) Zoupan (talk · contribs) MorenaReka (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I don't believe the following: "Kone was born in Tirana, Albania, to an ethnic Greek family" is supported by the source, in which the subject is being quoted as having said: "I still have relatives in Albania, they're all Greek." This, I argue is a conjectural interpretation of the subjects declaration. I also argue that the quote is a mistranslation of the original source in Italian (see contradicting sources on the talk page). Further, I propose removing "in Albania" from "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania", because it's again a conjectural interpretation of the source; it implies he meant that he hasn't faced any discrimination because he was born in Albania, but according to the source, he declared "I have never denied my origin, but in Greece I haven't been discriminated". It's not up to us to put a meaning to Kone's words, thus "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin" would be more in line with what he actually said. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards. How do you think we can help? Determine whether the entry in question contains original research, and if the explanation I've provided regarding the conflicting sources is valid. Summary of dispute by Alexikoua Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The part in question can be traslanted in English: I've migrated from Tirana to Athens with my family at the age of two years. I still have some members of my family in Albania, but they are all Greeks. This doesn't leave any doubt that he originates from the Greek-Albanian community (i.e. ethnic Greek community in Albania), since even his relatives that are still in Albania are Greeks. Anything else is simply OR (such as poor translations via google) in this case. Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Zoupan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The subject calls himself ethnic Greek. The issue is that some users try to downplay this ethnic identification by using OR (see the talk page), and now by using vagueness, such as changing "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania" to "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin". That's all I have to say about this.--Zoupan 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MorenaReka Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with DevilWearsBrioni that the source doesn't support the current wording, so Alexikoua is inferring in his edit his own original research. In addition, I would also add that there are several sources that say that Kone is an ethnic Albanian, and nationalized Greek at a young age, he was not born an ethnic Greek, and his cousins in Albania are not Greek at all. So not even the Greek source says that he is an ethnic Greek. Furthermore the Albanian sources and the Italian ones talk freely about the Albanian ethnicity of Kone (note that Kone has been playing in Italy since 2010 and we have many sources in Italian). Using google translate (I don't know Italian), I brought the following sources in Italian (if my translations from Italian are poor, like Alexikoua is saying, I invite someone else to assist with them): Gazzetta dello Sport 3 September 2011 says "greco di origine albanese" ("Greek of Albanian origin") Repubblica 21 December 2012 "Figlio di professori albanesi" ("Son of Albanian professors") Il Foglio 2 September 2013 Non è facile nascere albanese e ritrovarsi Greco ("It is not easy to be born Albanian and find yourself Greek") And I can bring several sources in Albanian, but I'm going to bring only some that have his ethnicity in the title itself: BalkanWeb 20 June 2015 Kone “çmend” grekët: Jam 100% shqiptar! ("Kone makes Greeks mad: I'm 100% Albanian") JavaNews 20 June 2015 Panajot Kone: Nuk e harroj që jam shqiptar ("I don't forget that I'm an Albanian") Lajme 30 June 2011 Une, shqiptari i greqizuar qe enderroj Lacion ("I, the Hellenized Albanian who dream about Lazio"). To say the least we have contradicting sources, and that's what I had suggested in the talk page: to contrast sources in Italian, Greek and Albanian and present them all, but the opposing side have ignored my reasonable and policy compliant request and as well as the continuous requests of DevilwearsBrioni. --MorenaReka (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Resnjari I have been observing this matter now for some time now. Points of dispute are over whether Kone meant "origin" (in Greek) as in heritage or ethnic background or whether origin meant as in he just is from Albania in a geographical and citizenship sense. Regarding the sources, we need Greek translations from editors who have not been involved in the dispute and who have a very good record of being impartial. This is the only way around this to clear up the matter. The news article do attribute these statements to Kone. Its the meaning or meanings that need elaboration. Thoughts from the administrators adjudicating the case on this proposal, of seeking out translations from other editors having a long record of impartiality to determine the matter and establish whether the proposed changes are relevant to the article?Resnjari (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Additional comment:Ok, i probably jumped the gun there. Nonetheless in the end some proper impartial translations are going to be needed of Kone's more recent statements regarding himself and his heritage. The issue of Kone's statements regarding his identity reflect the wider identity issues(and fluidity) surrounding some of Albania's Orthodox community (Albanian speakers, Aromanian speakers etc) and their migration to Greece. Regarding this part of the Kone matter at the moment, the sentence in the article needs to be altered as the source quoting Kone makes reference to him saying he has Greek relatives in Albania, not to being of Greek origin. The article itself however has a sentence which purports to interpret that as Kone stating he has an outright Greek origin. Apart from it being wp:original research, it is also distorting Kone's words. Some change is this warranted so the article reflects Kone's words.Resnjari (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Talk:Panagiotis Kone discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - First, this case is properly filed, and there has been adequate discussion on the talk page. Second, User:Resnjari has commented. Do they want to be added as a party, or are they making a neutral comment? At this point, we are waiting for statements from the other parties as to whether they want to participate in voluntary moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Comment - For what it's worth, I believe User:Resnjari's summary adds confusion to the discussion, because he seems to have misunderstood the points I put forth. The interpretation of Kone's press release from 2015 is -- although related to the issue at hand -- a separate point that I haven't made here, yet. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Coordinator's note and request for volunteer input: There's a problem here, entirely of my making, which will now need to be resolved. I closed this case as stale earlier this morning due to no volunteer picking it up and recommended a RFC, but I had failed to notice MorenaReka's response yesterday. Had I noted that, then I would have left this open for at least a few more days. Morena properly re-opened the case. However, in the interim DevilWearsBrioni opened an RFC at the article talk page, probably at my recommendation. Now that RFC has been filed, this listing should be closed due to our rule about not taking cases pending in other DR forums or processes (see the top of the page) and RFC's always "trump" DRN filings, causing the DRN listing to be closed (unless the RFC was filed as part of a compromise worked out here and, even then, the listing here will usually be closed) regardless of the order in which they were filed. Under our ordinary procedures, unless DevilWearsBrioni withdraws the RFC or unless it is closed by consensus, this DRN listing should ordinarily be closed. I don't want to appear to be edit warring with Morena, especially since this situation was due to my error, so I'd like for another volunteer to make the call on this situation. My apologies for creating this confusion. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Problem solved due to DevilWearsBrioni withdrawing the RFC. My thanks to him for curing my error. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (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.

Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Misdemenor on 05:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Misdemenor (talk · contribs) Kashmiri (talk · contribs) MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is that the Zahiri School has been added alongside the 4 Sunni Schools on Template:Sunni Islam. Zahiri was considered unorthodox by the traditional Sunni establishment and many reliable sources say its no longer active. The Zahiri school is therefore incorrectly labeled Sunni on two other articles Zahiri, Amman Message. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss the issue with the editors involved on the article talk page and even took it to the NPOV noticeboard. See previous discussion here [26] How do you think we can help? By more neutral editors opinion perhaps this dispute may be resolved. Summary of dispute by Kashmiri Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Academic sources list the Zahiri among Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence. As to its extinction, the school was indeed extinct for a millennium, however there are sources that say that recently it is being revived. I don't find it convincing to disregard all the academic sources and instead rely only on the Amman Message, a political document that concerns itself with the influential branches of today's Islam. kashmiri TALK 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is forum shopping by Misdemeanor, after a bad faith SPI on myself and Kashmiri as well as a circular discussion on the talk page and another noticeboard didn't yield the results he wanted. In short: Misdemeanor has a dogmatic religious belief that Sunni Islam can only ever be four schools of thought, and flatly rejects - and has even tried to outright delete - academic, peer reviewed, mainstream sources that run counter to his religious beliefs. All discussions with him end up going in circles because the bottom line is that, as part of his personal dogma, Zahirism or anything else can never be Sunni regardless of he fact that his definition of Sunni Islam runs counter to the established consensus via RS at Sunni Islam, as well as the fact that multiple reliable sources refer to Zahirism as Sunni and as having experienced a minor revival in the late 20th century. I know it might seem crass to speak about the other editor, but I am absolutely convinced that 90% of this issue is the editor, not the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The other editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (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.

Kapu (caste)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kapucastemember on 03:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kapu (caste) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kapucastemember (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have noticed that lost of pages to Kapu caste and Telaga caste are changed frequently and the content is either incorrect or insufficient. I want the admin to kindly edit the pages of Kapu and Telaga caste as per the following information listed below: please refer to www.kapusangam.com www.kapunadu.com www.telaganadu.com and click on history tab Also, as of today Kapu, Telaga, Balija are classified as forward caste as per govt of Andhra Pradesh. This needs immediate correction I am not threatening anyone. I am only requesting the users to provide proper content on wikipedia so that users are not miss directed Have you tried to resolve this previously? I am only requesting users to correct data or information on Kapu and telaga caste pages How do you think we can help? Please kindly ask the admin and users to correct it. I strongly appreciate this help Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Kapu (caste) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.