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.
The issue is User:Eik Corell and his systematic deletion of content from articles just because they are poorly written. I came across him from his deletion of new features in NHL video games. He refuses to tag them to be re-written and says "they'll never be rewritten". I've looked through his history and that's his main edits (blanking sections). Some are fine like game item lists and soundtracks that clearly violate WP:GAMECRUFT others are very baffling and clearly don't are are just poorly written.
Even after discussions on the NHL articles talk page saying that the main issue is the promotional tone and writing style of the sections and it's not WP:GAMECRUFT #7 that is being violated, he goes on delete it again. Saying that the content shouldn't be there on it's own (needs a gameplay section) even though no editor on the discussion agrees with that. They all say it need to be rewritten (I agree on that). He is sticking to the fact that it can't be on the page until the a full gameplay section is there. And, before we even get a chance to talk about how we are going to re write the sections he deletes it saying only when a gameplay section is there does this belong. Even when no other editor says that but him. The disturbing point is the failure to understand the basic wikipedia policy on consensus when he justifies his re deletion.
I have tried to stay civil with this user, but he refuses to listen and collaborate with other users and seems to only what to do what he wants. I'll even admit that I've become a little uncivil during the tail end of this back and forth.
I'll be working with the other users to re-write the sections.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried explaining to him that blanking section and gutting articles isn't the way to go and try to re write it himself. His response is he doesn't know much about NHL to do it (however his history shows he never does)
Next is I said tag it for Manual of style issue and alert the editors who wrote it (which takes 2-5 mins). His response is he doesn't have the time.
Next is just tagging it. Nope he won't do that because the tag will just stay there.
How do you think we can help?
First, this user needs to learn the collaborate. Working with him has is "my way or the highway".
Next is to know for sure if it's okay to blank notable sections instead of tagging them for cleanup/manual of style. If it's not, the best would be to also alert editors.
Summary of dispute by Eik Corell
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Clear violations of #7 of WP:GAMECRUFT. I resort to deleting such when I see them, other editor doesn't agree, reverts across the articles above. Request for comment happens on whether to delete or keep, 3 for keeping, 2 against. Debate goes back and forth for a bit, devolves into heaping personal attacks against me on the article talk page and my talk page -- Me destroying wikipedia, me being useless, etc. Shouldn't have reverted while discussion was still going on, I did so because I missed one of the comments for keeping the material, thinking debate was deadlocked. Eik Corell (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Eik Corell discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I have opened the discussion. Please make your case, and follow WP:CIVIL. I will be involved in this discussion, trying to help. All parties should check the case once every 30 hours.
ThePlatypusofDoom(Talk)15:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
I would like to point out that none of the other editors (even the one for delete) supports Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT #7 as support for delete. The other user who supported delete is due to how it was written (not the content) and said the content is fine if you can find reliable sources which I have. Everyone in the discussion agrees that it's poorly written and should be re written. Even GAMECRUFT #7 says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry." Remember this is a game that only gets produces every year because of these new features. It would make no sense not to include it.
After I brought up the last part, the other user changed his reasoning and said it's okay if there's a Gameplay section. This is where I told him that the best course of action if you think that is either fixing it yourself (adding the gameplay section) or tagging it for expansion and cleanup. As this is now a content issue and no guildline ever says you delete stuff because there's no content to go with it. However, the user refused and said the article would just stay like that forever. This is where I have the biggest problem. This user's first choice of action seems to always be delete. Not alerting the main editors of the article on his thoughts or ever discussing it. This is main issue I'm here, as I'm sure enough that the discussion on the talk page is clear to everyone but this user that's it's re-write.
Listing minor graphical and technology upgrades like physics is not a concise summary, and it's not relevant to understanding the gameplay at large, either. Many titles feature such minor improvements, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:VG/GL states that trivia such as this should be moved to the relevant categories; Development, reception, etc. Note for example that the Fallout 4 game features many graphical upgrades compared to its predecessor. Its article does go into specific details here and there, but it does so in the Development section, using developer commentary to at least try to establish how and why they feel that these upgrades are important or noteworthy. Instead, what we have here is a list of all new things compared to the previous game in the series. Being told that there are now new physics for the puck, "250 new goalie animations" or that the game features "spectacular new ways to score" tells me nothing about the games fundamental gameplay. This is exactly the kind of stuff that WP:GAMECRUFT is in place to root out; Trivia in the place of actual substance. For this reason, this trivia is not suitable to be kept in a prose-style rewrite of the lists, either. Eik Corell (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You still refuse to address how the NHL series only gets produced because of these series and now you are comparing a completely different series and using statements we already agree that doesn't need to be there ("spectacular new ways to score"). Let me ask you this do the new physics get talked about in so much depth in the Fallout series? No they don't. Yet, they do in these yearly sports game which clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline and with the context that these games only get produces because of those minor (only to you) details it deserves to be there. You continue to ignore the context on why it's important. That's the problem here. I have told you this context over 6 times now and you refuse to address it. Does Fallout get produced every time because of their improvements. No it doesn't. How can other users see the context but not you? -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to add that this 'trivia' is what gets people to buy these games every year. You keep saying that you need gameplay? Really a gameplay section on a sports game. What is it going to say? Players take the puck and put it in the net? -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it matters that the games change very little since this doesn't prevent the writing of a proper gameplay section, I simply don't see that as an excuse to circumvent WP:VG/GL. Sure it's easier to write this way, but it's in direct contradiction to said guideline's WP:GAMECRUFT as I mentioned, and articles are not supposed to be comparisons to earlier, related articles. I just don't see anything in WP:VG/GL that justifies lowering the standard just because this series has less changes per game. The fact that sports games, and indeed many game franchise series often change very little doesn't justify pulling out small changes and explaining the game by turning the gameplay article into a list of every single one of these, that's why I mention trivia -- When we've stooped to mentioning the "spectacular goals" and "new puck physics" kind of stuff, we've hit bedrock of WP:GAMECRUFT. Using the NHL 15 article as an example: I don't even know whether it's about managing a team, what part and how big a part that plays in the game, or whether it's first or third person, that's what I'm getting at with this "telling the average reader nothing" thing. As it stands, the NHL 15 article's best section is the infobox, everything else is trivia and comparisons, and it's a sad state to leave an article in or rewrite it off of. In summary, I understand when you say that the context is that these changes are often the only ones between games. My point is that that we haven't actually describing the gameplay that these changes are supposed to compliment. Eik Corell (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
In #7 says "Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.". We are now discussing if it's appropriate to understand the game. You can not continue to say it's violating it while we discuss it and that we are circumventing it. When the guildlines themselves say that if it's important to understand the game (what we are arguing), it's okay.
Now we are back at this doesn't belong if there's no gameplay section (you see how these are two different arguments)? Please show me the guildline that says that. About how you should delete sections because more information is needed on it. Don't use GAMECRUFT #7 because it's not about that. It's about whether something deserves inclusion or not. What you are saying is basically if a sports team page only talks about the recent 10 year only that that section should be deleted because the last 100 years isn't there. Take the Yankees article and imagine only 1996–2007 section (dynasty) is in the article. By your logic, we should delete it. Why because it doesn't make sense. (The context is gone) How did the Yankees get Derek Jeter? How did they turn around their team? So, let me ask you this would you delete that section and why? Please don't say that this isn't a GAMECRUFT issue because nether is the information on wikipedia needs to precede anything.
I do agree that some video game pages need updating, but some do a pretty good job already. A gameplay section might be a good idea, but I do think that Eik Corell's opinions are worth considering. Could we have the section kept, but let Eik do what he wants with the rest of the article? ThePlatypusofDoom(Talk)16:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The gameplay sections should indeed be expanded, but for the most part, not on the basis of what's comprising them now. The stuff in, for example, the NHL 13 list could conceivably be converted if rewritten in prose and with said expansion to include basic aspects of the game, but the two lists of features added and removed on the NHL 15 article, not so much. The new features list is totally random trivia half of which is visual improvements, and the "removed features" list is again useless to the average reader -- If you come to an article like this, you leave non the wiser knowing what was removed from the previous game. This section is largely without sources as well to talk about any of these removals, and seems to be to stray clearly into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory; it's something that would be relevant only to players of the previous games allowing them to better adapt to the new game. Eik Corell (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my points. Especially, Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. I assume you didn't find the guildline that says information can be deleted if it doesn't come in order. You continue to say false stuff right after I say something that disproves it. No sources? You are saying there's no sources when I post a whole bunch on the talk page of NHL 15 (which I have already re-written the sections on the talk page in prose which again is ignored by you). You can't say there's no sources in the section therefore it's not notable. You must do your research and google it and see if you can find them (which btw was the first thing I told and once again you ignore it). You continue to say trivia over and over like it means something without addressing the fact that it gets talked about a lot in every source I post. I didn't know random information gets written about by media outlets over and over again. You're whole argument is a big Circular_reasoning fallacy. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with an added gameplay section. Not to mention, I have already re written the section in prose on the talk page. The MOS should no longer be a problem. Which was the problems the other users had. The only user who is going to remove' the whole thing is Eik. As such, that's why we're here. ALso, I've even proposed it as a comprise before (writing a gameplay section to go with it), but like everything else I've tried to say it's blatantly ignored. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for Eik's response on this. He has ignored this and when straight to the talk about my change (which has nothing to do with what you suggested). I'm not sure if he just doesn't care about the gameplay anymore or not.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought I had responded to this. For whatever reason it didn't go through. Anyway, it addressed me being a bit confused as to what gameplay section you were referring to, hence me going to the article talk page and adding my ideas on the proposed gameplay sections there. If I were to make any edits apart from what we're discussing with the list of added features, I'd remove the "removed features" list from the NHL 15 article since this is wholely unneccesary to the article. If that's not what you mean, please elaborate a bit. Eik Corell (talk) 00:21, 30 May 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.
Cyfuture
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
As there is already an AFD is progress regarding the article, DRN isn't currently an appropriate discussion forum. Discussion regarding the merits of the article should occur here. DonIago (talk) 19:10, 31 May 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.
I removed some part of the article and removed some reference links but still it did not help in removing the AfD request
How do you think we can help?
I am new to Wikipedia with no coding abilities. Thought you could help
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cyfuture 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.
Toreeva Talkpage
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in 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.
I sent email with total description of my problem to info-en&wikipedia.org, and they suggested your page. If you need I can resend my email to you. I don't know personally editor Joseph2302, nor his motivation, but it looks he is
following me to just delete any of my input into the Draft (text and 5 drawings)
and now the Article. I asked for help in improving the article, but no response.
The Article was already approved, I just needed to do some improvement. And since
I added some references, he called it as the "Promotional" reason. And now it
looks any door is closed, if Joseph2302 is following me on each step without any
reason but harassing me, and delete the article by any course. Now the article is under delete discussion again.
Please help me to restore/improve the article and resolve the problem with
unneeded harassment from your editor, Joseph2302. I would like to ban/block him from me and my inputs.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
For example, I asked for help Teahouse editors, but he deleted my request. When I asked why he deleted, he restored my request.
How do you think we can help?
Ban/block this editor from any of my input, since my feeling is he is doing it not from the good faith, and it creates a bad face for the whole wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Joseph2302
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Toreeva Talkpage 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:Ramblersen#Frederiksberg
Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in 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.
This is a content dispute about how to present the location of the Lycée Français Prins Henrik, but it could affect multiple articles (note:the discussion began on a user talk page, but it can be copied to an article talk if need be)
The school is in Frederiksberg, a Danish municipality surrounded by, but not a part of, the commune (municipality) of Copenhagen. see this map - The question is whether it should be described as being "in Copenhagen".
One user argued that the school should be presented as being "in Copenhagen" since Danish people think of Frederiksberg as being a part of Copenhagen even though it's not in the commune limits; he cited a Danish publication that ranks Copenhagen as one of Denmark's top cities and includes several inner ring suburbs and Frederiksberg in the figure. In addition he cited that employment statistics are counted area-wide and not strictly commune by commune.
I argue that the school should not be presented as being "in Copenhagen" since strictly speaking it is not within the municipal limits and that the Danish Statistical Agencies list Copenhagen and Frederiksberg as solely being their municipalities when calculating population statistics.
One issue is that I argued that enclaves in big U.S. cities such as Beverly Hills are treated independently ("Beverly Hills, CA", not "Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, CA") and that the situation is similar, while the other party argued that the situation in the U.S. is not relevant to Denmark.
I looked up 'definitions of Copenhagen' in English and found an OECD book page suggesting it could be defined as being strictly the commune, or together with Frederiksberg, or with multiple suburbs.
A third user generally agrees with the second user and offered this edition as a compromise. It's a step in the right direction but I think there needs to be clarification, especially in other articles
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The only step taken so far was an extended discussion about the definition of Copenhagen and how/whether American enclaves are relevant to the discussion.
How do you think we can help?
Try to determine how to define "Copenhagen" in a verifiable way and to determine whether certain inner-ring suburbs or enclaves outside of Copenhagen Municipality should be stated as "suburb/enclave name, Denmark" or "suburb/enclave name, Copenhagen, Denmark" and/or which suburbs/enclaves should be "suburb/enclave name, Denmark" vs. "suburb/enclave name, Copenhagen, Denmark"
Summary of dispute by Ramblersen
My main points are:
1) It is normal to refer to Frederiksberg as (part of) Copenhagen (but of course not as part of Copenhagen Municipality). It is factually wrong (as I have already written on my talk page) when WhisperToMe states that "the Danish Statistical Agencies list Copenhagen and Frederiksberg as solely being their municipalities when calculating population statistics." - they give both population numbers for Copenhagen Municipality and "Byen København" (literally "The city Copenhagen" which includes the municipalities of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Tårnby and Dragør. My link with unemployement stats was just an example, they use the term "Byen København" systematically in numerous contexts. When they annually priduces numbers for the size of Danih cities, they use urban area and Frederiksberg therefore doesn't feature in its own right but only as part of the number for Copenhagen.
2) Most readers of an article about a French School in Copenhagen (the principle one) won't care about Frederiksberg's political status since it is without practical importance for the school, others will know about it already and the rest can easily learn more by clicking the article about Frederiksberg.
3) To me it seems very undesirable to use some tough-on-the-tongue formulation like "Frederiksberg, Denmark, a municipality completely surrounded by Copenhagen Municipality" and especially to repeat it in some hundred articles where this political detail is irrelevant. I think it is plenty to write that it is located "in Frederiksberg in central Copenhagen" or something like that and then to go into more detail with the issue in articles where it is relevant because the municipal boundries matter (for instance public schools operated by the municipality which caters to local residents unlike the French School which caters to people in Copenhagen in general). Just writing Frederiksberg instead of Copenhagen without further expalnations will cause more condusion than it will be informative to most readers and explaining too much (in article after article) will result in endless repetitions and less readable articles (leads). And it won't be more correct/precise (cf, 1) above).Ramblersen (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
4) Use of the formulation "in Frederiksberg in central Copenhagen" is in accordance with the scope of the GA-status article on Copenhagen.
Summary of dispute by Ipigott
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lycée Français Prins Henrik 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 extensive discussion at a user talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing of this request. The filing party is required to notify the other parties of this filing. Also, this dispute does not appear to be well-suited to this noticeboard unless the editors are willing to narrow its scope to one article. This noticeboard is normally for the discussion of content issues about individual articles. If there is a more general issue having to do with cities within cities (enclave cities), a Manual of Style discussion might be in order. For now, we are waiting for the filing party to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that we were notified. I don't think Ipigott is interested in participating further in the discussion since he finds it is unproductive and can spend his time better elsewhere.Ramblersen (talk) 10:54, 29 May 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:Valles Marineris#New_paper_on_lava_tubes
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Procedural close. There has been some (barely adequate) discussion at the talk page. There are a few problems with this filing that can be addressed so that it can be refiled, but are enough to close for now. First, there are editors besides those listed who have made brief comments and are not listed. Second, none of the editors have been notified of this filing. Third, the filing unregistered editor appears to be mostly making conduct allegations such as sockpuppetry. (The allegation of sockpuppetry is strange, since the filing party is the only unregistered editor and there is no evidence that any of the registered editors are ducks that quack alike. This case can be refiled when all parties are listed and proper notice is given and when content issues only are addressed on the talk page and in the filing. If there are real complaints of sockpuppetry, take them to sockpuppet investigations, but the idle claim of sockpuppetry is a severe personal attack. Parties may come back if they have a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 9 June 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.
I did corrections to the Valles Marineris page introducing new published theories about formation through erosion by lava and removing words like rift valleys because are in contradiction with the lack of plate tectonics already mentioned in the article and recognized by various authors.
The user WolfmanSF removed these corrections accusing me of self-promotion because my paper on the formation of Valles Marineris was cited several times. I tried to explain that the multiple citations were required for scientific reasons needed to reference much of the additional text but WolfmasSF continued with his accusations ignoring the correctness of the additional text.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Explaining the scientific reasons in the talk page
How do you think we can help?
Keeping into the page the corrections made by me. I cited my paper only twice this time, WolfmanSF admitted that the lava erosion should be included after all.
Summary of dispute by WolfmanSF
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Giovanni.leone.pa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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:Neoconservatism#Hillary Clinton
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Procedural close. There has been discussion at the article talk page by three registered editors and an unregistered editor, the filing party. Only one of the three registered editors has been listed. This case is being closed without prejudice. The filing party may refile, listing and notifying all of the appropriate editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 11 June 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.
The inclusion of Hillary Clinton in this section is being disputed, as well as whether the section itself should be included in the article at all.
I have attempted to include Hillary Clinton in this section, and provided several sources to justify it. However another user consistently removes the edit, and the reasons provided have been consistently without basis. The first two times, the user claimed to be removing the addition to an objection about one out of four of the sources I cited, removing the other three sources without even addressing them. To be clear: he did this once, I pointed out the other sources, and he did it again. He has also continually misrepresented the nature of my sources and the nature of his edits. He keeps adamantly asserting "Hillary Clinton is not a neocon," when that is not what her inclusion in the section claims. In one of his edit descriptions, he states "blogs & self-published items are not RS -- BLP requires VERY strong evidence," which I do not disagree with, but none of the sourced I cited were blogs or self-published. And this was after I noted in the Talk page that other people included in the section had a blog as their only cited source, and suggested that he start there if he was concerned about unreliable sources. It seems very clear that he is simply out to defend Hillary Clinton, and is being dishonest with his edits.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried adding more sources.
How do you think we can help?
Third-party input
Summary of dispute by Rjensen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 70.161.173.99
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Neoconservatism#Hillary Clinton 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:2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 13 June 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.
Hi
A senior editor is prohibiting me from providing more information on Wikipedia regarding the inventor of Raggedy Ann John Gruelle. He is consistently undoing my revisions. I wrote him in detail why his citations are not correct; his sources do not actually state what he is summarizing, and he is violating Wikipedia's rule regarding the 'weight' of the issue as it relates to the subject. All he will do is undo what I have written and researched, not making the effort to combine and balance the viewpoints. He is censoring information people are trying to find online about the true history of J Gruelle's involvement in a political movement.
He additionally scolded me for not getting "consensus" on the issue before writing--but his revisions never received consensus either. I have revised 4 sentence to accurately reflect the same source he is quoting and he has become militant at undoing it. I am certainly open tto compromise here and would be open to keeping his work as well as mine, which is based in hhistorical fact.
He has also publically called me an "anti-vaxxer" within the edit history of the changes of the page, thus disparaging me for no reason. I do not know how he can make this assumption and at minimum this name-calling needs to be removed from the edit list where it is shown to others. This is slander.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have added additional citations, as well as wrote a lengthy explanation of the changes to the editor who continues to revert my work.
How do you think we can help?
I think the best solution here would be to first assess whether there is indeed a widespread belief that Tenebrae suggests, and if so, have a more collaborative process on talking about this myth, but at the same time talking about J Gruelle's involvement politically which may have been why the myth arose in the first place. Wikipedia can be a source of information for people.
Summary of dispute by Tenebrae
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 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.
Vijayanagara Empire
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Procedural close. 72 hours after filing, and 36 hours after a restatement of the need to notify the other editors, the other editors have not yet been notified. The filing party or any editor can, without prejudice, refile this case if they give proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 June 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.
This is to do with the article Vijayanagara Empire, which ruled much of South India between the 14th and 17th Century. There are number of inscriptions spread across South in several languages. Addition of inscriptions of the Empire in a particular language (Tamil in this case) is being repeatedly undone of some users. The justification being given that the language in question was only a provincial language, etc. Some comments lean on regionalism, such as This is about Vijayanagara empire centered in Vijayanagara, not Tamil Nadu.
The photos are
File:Dharmeshwara Temple Plates.jpg recorded by eminent Indologist B. Lewis Rice
File:Vijaynagar Tamil Inscription, Someshwara Temple, Ulsoor.jpg
Another reason being quoted is that the article is a FA Article and hence there was no place of addition of these articles. But at the same time, the article has
File:Poetic Kannada inscription of Manjaraja dated 1398 CE at Vindyagiri hill in Shravanabelagola.jpg
on the claim that it was the inscription of a royal poet of one of the Kings. But the inscription is missing the Vijaynagar Emblem 'Sun and Crescent Moon' and hence no direct link with the Empire.
I believe, leaving out an historical inscription, just because it is a particular language violates Wikipedia NPOV policy. If the Vijaynagar Kings were keen on promoting only a particular language, they would not have commissioned edicts in several languages.
Other examples of the Vijaynagar Inscriptions in Tamil are
The monuments of the Vijaynagar Empire are UNESCO recognized monuments, and as such the culture belongs to the entire human race. Here Attempts are being made to portray that the empire belonged only to a particular community.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried reasoning with editor Jugaari cross, offered to include just one photo for representation from the existing two and no agreement was reached
How do you think we can help?
Help maintain neutrality, ensure NPOV principle is followed
Summary of dispute by Jugaari cross
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Holenarasipura
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Vijayanagara Empire 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 a user talk page. Although discussion at the article talk page is preferred, the discussion at a user talk page is sufficient. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. The filing party should notify the other parties of this filing. This case can be opened after proper notice is given if the other editors agree to discussion here (since participation here is voluntary). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Robert, the reason for not taking up discussion on the article page is topic can potentially cause bad blood between different editors. The topic is related to India, and this can be pretty serious. I'm not sure if you know, people get killed there for community disputes. Also, it will be the case of majority trampling over minority viewpoints. Here, I wanted to get an opinion from an neutral mediator. I got a notice that dispute has been filed, and would have thought other users would have also received similar notices. WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - First, the notice to which you refer had to do with the declined request for formal mediation, where notice is provided by a bot. We don't have bot notification for informal mediation here. Please read the instructions on how to provide that notice. Second, Wikipedia isn't Indian soil, and Wikipedia has ArbCom discretionary sanctions to limit the bad blood in editing disputes in areas that are real battlegrounds. It is still better to discuss article disputes on article talk pages. Your request has been properly filed; you just need to provide notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 13 June 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.
Southern Levant
Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments5 people in discussion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Partially resolved. The lede paragraph will be decided by an RFC. Although the editors have stated that there are issues about the body of the article, they have not identified them. Any issues about the body of the article can be decided by further discussion on the article talk page, and can be brought back here if identified clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 18 June 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.
I recently made an edit that I'm confident was an improvement to the lead at Southern Levant. Unfortunately, the edit was reversed with the claim that it was "out of context" with no elaboration provided. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous rationale as "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan" is a direct statement from a scholarly article which is well supported within the source text. (The exact quote from the source is "Much work continues to be done in these regions, and not surprisingly this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant [i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan].")
Additionally, a major issue is the insertion of WP:UNDUE, cherry picked "criticisms" of the subject that are inserted into the article via original research. These comments have no place in an article about a geographical region. Their existence in the article is basically a result of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Drsmoo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Attempted discussion for years.
How do you think we can help?
Ruling on policy and standards, providing an independent view of the situation, providing additional insight into the article.
Summary of dispute by Oncenawhile
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In five years of work on this article, Drsmoo and I have managed to find only four WP:RS which comment on the usage of the term. Deleting three of those four sources, together with the entire terminology section, simply because they provide an element of critique, is inappropriate. Any sentence on usage in the lead should be reflective of the main body of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Debresser
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I do not want to summarize this dispute, and not I created this section. I have stated my opinion clearly in the comments. Debresser (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Laurel Lodged
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Southern Levant discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Having been involved in the upmerge and re-categorization of Category:Southern Levant, I feel a bit connected to this post. I just want to say a few general words, that even though the category was upmerged, that does not mean the article is devoid of meaning. Adding sourced information of a general nature, seems a good idea. I think all non-fringe and attributed opinions should be in the article. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been involved. I disagreed with the decision to delete the category. There was evidence of editing by the main parties after clear notice of intent to go here was signalled which I deplored. Both evidence for and against the term should be presented. The weight of evidence, from reputable sources, favours having "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan" in the lead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I will be opening this thread for discussion. It appears that there previously was a category of Southern Levant, which was upmerged. This thread is not for discussion of the category merge, only the article. I will check on this thread at least every 24 hours. All editors are expected to check on it at least every 48 hours and to answer questions in a timely manner, at least in 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and overly lengthy posts do not clarify matters. Comment on content, not contributors. Comments on contributors, and uncivil comments, may be removed. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion between contributors. Address comments to the moderator and the community, not to each other. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress (except for minor edits which should be real minor edits). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Will each editor please summarize, in one or two paragraphs, what the issue or issues are? (We are not discussing categories; we are discussing an article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
The article refers to a term covering a region which is poorly defined but broadly duplicated by many other articles such as Palestine (region), Land of Israel, Canaan, Southern Syria, Holy Land and Promised Land. As such, almost all the editing and related debates on this article over the last five years have focused on describing the usage of this additional terminology. For the first few years we had no sources commenting on usage, but over the last 18 months a handful have come to light:
This dispute is about whether this edit: [10] is appropriate. The edit removes the terminology section in its entirety, leaving only one of the above sources in the article, and promotes the remaining source to the lead in the form of a quote of debatable appropriateness. The three removed sources comment on use of the term "Southern Levant" (capital S), whilst the promoted source comments on use of the term "Levant", and describes the southern Levant (lower case S) as being mostly referred to in PhD dissertations as "Israel" or "Canaan".
The principal issue is that of all the names for the region on Wikipedia, only southern Levant had a section comprised of opinions on the name. The "academic usage" section was rather a for/against collection of cherry-picked opinions rather than an explanation of the way southern Levant is used in academia. Crucially, there's no reliable source anywhere indicating southern Levant to be in any way controversial, yet the academic usage section created that impression through original research. The section was populated by excerpts pulled from articles in which the authors go through various overlapping names for the region, commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of each one, before stating why they (the authors) are now (by and large) preferring to use southern Levant. Somehow, this was original research'd into compiling a list of positive and negative comments about the southern Levant and calling it an academic usage section, while all comments (from the same sources) about other regional names were discarded. It was a mess, and had no place in an article about a regional name.
What remains from that section was kept in the article due to it not being an opinion but a statement of fact (written as a statement of fact) from a reliable source. The claim about southern Levant/Southern Levant is a non-issue. The standard way of writing the region name is southern Levant, similar to upstate New York. Sometimes, authors write it in title case, depending on their personal style. Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
It appears that the real question has to do with the Terminology section. Is anything else in question? The Terminology section has currently been deleted. Would each editor who thinks that it should continue to be excluded please explain why? Would each editor who thinks that it is needed please explain why it is needed? (My own opinion, and I try to be neutral, is that if some editors think it is needed, it probably serves a purpose.) Also, if there were multiple sources about the name, and some disagreement as to which to use, why not use all of them? Please identify any particular sources that are, in an editor's opinion, so biased that they should not be used at all even along with other sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the section you're referring to is the Academic Usage section, I agree it should remain in the article. The issue is neither the section nor the sources, but rather the way quotes from those sources are being cherry picked in a WP:SYNTH way. What needs to happen is that the quotations must accurately represent the sources. For example, sources that go through various regional names before advocating for southern Levant mustn't be presented in a way that makes it appear as though the author was criticizing the term when no such criticism occurred. Comments from those sources regarding other regional names should be incorporated as well due to their relevance to the term southern Levant (which came into popular usage due to it being non-controversial and strictly geographical.) An example of the way to move forward would be as follows: Claudia Sagona described the regional names "Palestine" and "Land of Israel" as "political" and "theological" respectively, joining those advocating for the designation "Southern Levant" and adding "Although I confess that it is an awkward name, it is at least strictly geographical"[1]
The issues in the article stem from synthesizing a section made to look as though the neutral term southern Levant is in some way unpopular. The sources themselves are fine as long as they're presented in context. Drsmoo (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of this, apart from the second sentence, the penultimate sentence, and the specific drafting proposed for the example given (which includes a number of inaccuracies in the representation of the source), and subject to being nervous that we could end up with an overly detailed section which just quotes and paraphrases authors rather than applying any editorial judgement. It sounds like we are making some progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. If you agree, please state what you agree with.
Third statements by editors
I agree that we shouldn't engage in back-and-forth discussion and should respond directly to the moderator's prompts. Drsmoo (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, I didn't answer your questions in your second statement because with Drsmoo's last statement there are no longer any editors suggesting we should delete the section or delete any sources. So I agree with Drsmoo's proposal that we should focus on working to create drafting which accurately represents the sources to the extent it doesn't already. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The disagreement is in the details. I see the previous version as WP:Synth, and the other editor disagrees. The other editor alleges that there were "inaccuracies in the representation of the source" in my post, to which I disagree. The idea is/was to assist their resolution through the mediation of an uninvolved party. Please advise as to whether or not that type of mediation is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, if so, it will be resolved on the page itself. Drsmoo (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This mediation has been helpful, as agreement on a couple of key points has been reached. The only outstanding area is exactly how to appropriately represent the four sources in the article. I think that this version of the article is reasonable, but am open minded to other suggestions. As to whether mediation is required for this final stage, we would benefit from it greatly. Over five years of arguing we have reached a point of such tension and lack of trust that the view of a third party is needed to reach a stable conclusion. Frankly, since this topic has been the source of the long running feud between me and Drsmoo, it would be a shame if we didn't take this opportunity to reach a final conclusion and make amends. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator
It appears that the remaining disagreement has only to do with sources to quote. Does that mean sources concerning the use of the particular name for the region. In either case, will each editor please provide the text that they would like to see included in the article? (Diffs to old versions don't show how a version differs from other versions.) If what you want to show is multiple paragraphs, then you can provide your partial draft in user space, but I think it is just one paragraph that is in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors
Preferred text: Academic Usage: In the field of archaeology, the Southern Levant is “the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan.”[2] Writing that “all of the older terms are now compromised” and that Syro-Palestinian Archaeology, a term he had initially established, “may be obsolete and in need of replacement” William Dever suggested, "to avoid further politicization", either speaking "deliberately and specifically of the archaeology of each modern region of the Middle East" or alternatively, "the archaeology of the 'southern Levant' or simply the 'Levant.'"[3] The term Southern Levant has been described as “strictly geographical".[4] The journal Paléorient described the term as "imprecise" in a 1993 editorial[5] though it has continued using the term. Drsmoo (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Preferred text: Some scholars studying the region's archaeology have adopted the term Levantine archaeology (including northern and southern halves), in place of alternate names such as biblical archaeology, Syro-Palestianian archaeology, Near Eastern archaeology, Israeli archaeology and Palestinian archaeology.[6] A survey of North American dissertations on archaeology in the Levant shows the overwhelming focus of these works has been the "southern Levant"[6] but with most moden Ph.D. dissertations using the terms ‘Israel’ and ‘Canaan’.[6][7] The term Southern Levant has also been criticized as imprecise[8] and an awkward name.[9][10] The term Southern Levant has been described in academic discourse as a "at least a strictly geographical" description of the region.[9]Oncenawhile (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator
If neither of the two editors will agree to the other version, then the next step would appear to be a Request for Comments. Does either editor agree to the other statement, or will we have a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The versions provided by each of the editors include both draft language for the lede paragraph and academic justification. For the RFC, I only intend to present the two proposed versions of the lede paragraph. Please provide only the text to be offered as the two choices in the RFC. (You can and are encouraged to add your rationale to the discussion in the RFC when the RFC is published.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors
Lead: The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert.[11] In the field of archaeology, the southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan."[6] Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.[12]Drsmoo (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
^ abcdBurke, Aaron. The Transformation of Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" The Transformation of Biblical and Syro-Palestinian Archaeology." Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism. Ed. Thomas Evan. Levy. London: Equinox Pub., 2010. "Much work continues to be done in these regions, and not surprisingly this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant (i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan)...Nevertheless, despite such a well-reasoned basis for the identification of Levantine archaeology, the adoption of this term by many scholars has been, for the most part, simply the result of individual attempts to consider a wider, yet relevant, cultural corpus than that which is suggested by the use of terms like Canaan,Israel, or even Syria-Palestine. Regardless of the manner in which the term has come into common use, for a couple of additional reasons it seems clear that the Levant will remain the term of choice. In the first place scholars have shown a penchant for the term Levant, despite the fact that the term ‘Syria-Palestine’ has been advocated since the late 1970s. This is evident from the fact that no journal or series today has adopted a title that includes ‘Syria-Palestine’. However, the journal Levant has been published since 1969 and since 1990 Ägypten und Levante has also attracted a plethora of papers relating to the archaeology of this region. Furthermore, a search through any electronic database of titles reveals an overwhelming adoption of the term ‘Levant’ when compared to ‘Syria-Palestine’ for archaeological studies. Undoubtedly, this is mostly due to the fact that ‘Syria-Palestine’ is, correctly speaking, the title for a Roman administrative division of the Levant created by Hadrian (Millar 1993). The term ‘Syria-Palestine’ also carries political overtones that inadvertently evoke current efforts to establish a full-fledged Palestinian state. Scholars have recognized, therefore, that—for at least the time being—they can spare themselves further headaches by adopting the term Levant to identify this region"
^Dever, William (2003). "Introduction". In Suzanne Richard (ed.). Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Eisenbrauns. p. 11. ISBN978-1-57506-083-5. If all of the older terms are now compromised (and they are) what do we propose? I can only suggest that we speak deliberately and specifically of the archaeology of each modern region of the Middle East despite the fact that many of these borders are recent and arbitrary. Thus, the archaeology of "Israel"; the "West Bank" (not "Samaria and Judea"); "Jordan"; and "Syria". If an adjective is required for us to identify ourselves individually and professionally we can simply say: "I am a Near Eastern archaeologist specializing in X." All the above may be awkward hut we have little choice if we are to avoid further politicization of our discipline. Alternatively we might speak of the archaeology of the "southern Levant" or simply the "Levant."
^Editorial remarks, Paléorient (1993), Volume 19-1, pp. 6-7, quote "In gathering contributions for the present issue, it soon became apparent - and this is a generally valid point - that imprecise terminology is one of the major difficulties encountered in our research. An example is the term "Southern Levant" used as a substitute for the geographers’ "Palestine". The use of this term hides the particularism of the regions on either side of the Jordan Valley just when the discoveries of the last decade have highlighted their specificity. The lack of precision traditional terminology (agriculture, herding, pastoralism, neolithic, etc.) applied to the complex phenomena that we are studying constantly leads to misunderstandings."
^ abC.H.J. de Geus, Palestina Antiqua, Palestina Antiqua (2003), Book 10, p. 6, quote "At the beginning of this Introduction I have indicated how difficult it is to choose a general accepted name for the region this book deals with. In Europe we are used to the late Roman name "Palestine," and the designation "Palestinian Archaeology" has a long history. According to Byzantine usage it included CisJordan and TransJordan and even Lebanon and Sinai. In modern times, however, the name "Palestine" has exclusively become the political designation for a restricted area. Furthermore, in the period this book deals with a region called "Palestine" did not yet exist. Also the ancient name "Canaan" cannot be used as it refers to an older period in history. Designations as: "The Land(s) of the Bible" or "the Hold Land" evoke the suspicion of a theological bias. "The Land of Israel" does not apply to the situation because it never included Lebanon or the greater part of modern Jordan. Therefore I have joined those who today advocate the designation "Southern Levant." Although I confess that it is an awkward name, it is at least strictly geographical"
^Bill T. Arnold (7 April 2014). Introduction to the Old Testament. Cambridge University Press. p. 37. ISBN978-0-521-87965-1.: "What we call the land of the Bible today has potential for misunderstanding. This small strip of land in the Southern Levant has been occupied by so many, fought over and carved up so many times, that it is hard to know just what to call it. The use of "Israel" implies to some that all of it belongs today only to the Jews as legitimate descendants of OT Israel. Similarly, "Palestine" has a longstanding usage, but may imply that all of it belongs to Palestinian Arabs exclusively. Both of these terms could be used strictly for geography. But because of the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both terms also may introduce misunderstanding. And biblical scholars have no universal agreement on this topic. "Syria-Palestine" is often used, as here, for geographical precision. But it is only the southern portion of Syria-Palestine that was occupied by ancient Israel, and it does not always communicate sufficiently. "Canaan" is an ancient name, but it also is not exactly conterminous with the land occupied by ancient Israel. I have used "Southern Levant" occasionally here but admit that this is a strange expression. l will most often refer simply to "Israel," by which I mean the territory of national Israel in the OT, but hope the reader will understand no modern political claims by this use."
Hi Robert, yes there are issues in the main body - specifically the "Terminology" or "Academic Usage" section which was removed pending agreement here. That is where the five sources under discussion reside in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the issue was WP:Synth, the sources themselves are fine and good, but they way many of them were presented in the article was misleading. Sources that outright advocated for usage of the term due were presented as if they were criticizing it when no such criticism existed, etc. Drsmoo (talk) 07:31, 14 June 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:TheLiberal.ie#COI editing.2C_part_2
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in 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.
I believe that the editor Imthenumberonefan has a conflict of interest in editing this page. They appear to have edited the website the page is about to match content they want to have on the wiki article. Their edits in general have been consistently removed because they tend to read like promotional content. The discussion, such as it is, seems to involve constant gainsaying so I'd like a more experienced editor to offer an opinion on how to proceed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've attempted to discuss the topic repeatedly with Imthenumberonefan but receive evasive answers (in my view) each time. They consistently make edits that are disputed regardless.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not an experienced editor, so I don't know how to resolve this issue for once and for all (or if that's even possible).
Summary of dispute by Imthenumberonefan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
Procedural close for the following reasons. First, the discussion on the article talk page has been marginally adequate to come here. Second, the filing party has not notified the other parties of this filing. This case can be refiled after further inconclusive discussion with proper notice, or can be resolved by discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 18 June 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.
2 users want to override the guidelines established for similar scandals facing the university. As outlined in the talk page, the basketball scandal resulted in the firing of the head coach as well as an investigation. The current scandal encompasses the football program and at the very least should be moved to the football article, not the university article. The consensus was established long ago and there is no reason for this to be an exception or for a new consensus to be required.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to tell them to stop edit warring against the consensus to no avail.
How do you think we can help?
Removal and locking of the article to stop their edit warring against the consensus.
Summary of dispute by Corkythehornetfan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ElKevbo
Cardinalfan24 has made only the barest token effort to discuss his or her concerns in Talk and has edit warred to enforce his or her opinion in the article's content. I will only participate in this process after we've exhausted the routine process of engaging on the article's Talk page but not until then. ElKevbo (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am closing this case, as there has been little discussion on the talk page. The case includes a request for "[r]emoval [...] of the article". If by that you mean deletion, then you can bring it to WP:AFD, but I don't see any reason for that. User:Cardinalfan24 has clearly been edit-warring, although without violating WP:3RR, with three reverts in less than 24 hours (123) in addition to the original edit. I recommend that everyone continues discussing the issue on the talk page and brings it back here if no consensus can be reached. KSFTC14:28, 17 June 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.
User talk:Sciencewatcher
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This case is badly filed in several ways. First, there has apparently been no recent discussion either on the article talk page or on the indicated user talk page. Second, the filing party has listed three editors, but one of them does not exist (probably misspelled) and one of them is a blocked sockpuppet. If there is new discussion on the article talk page and the discussion is inconclusive, this case can be refiled, specifying real editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 18 June 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.
Sciencewatcher and others are controlling the MCS- Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page, not allowing valid and objective information, such as MEDLINE quotes, to go up.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I, and others, have tried to broach the subject many times with this editor
How do you think we can help?
Let edits go up that are verifiable and can be cited properly, like any other Wikipedia page.
Summary of dispute by Wingedwolfpsion
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The Jolly Bard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by sciencewatcher
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Sciencewatcher 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.
We can't agree on whether the ARWU ranking should be included in the lede.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried a third opinion, but the person giving the third opinion appears not to have understood the problem, and didn't say anything useful. I clarified the issue and left a message on his talk page, but no response also.
How do you think we can help?
It's a dispute between two editors. The content in question isn't too difficult to understand. I'm hoping a few more eyes on the dispute would resolve it easily.
Summary of dispute by Kioj156
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Most of the discussion of the topic is located here [11], I disagree with Banedon's edits because he/she is insistent on removing the THE Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences world ranking without giving a valid explanation and replacing it with text of every single world ranking. I don't see the need for this when most university wikipedia pages only make mention of the university rankings they perform better in in their leading paragraphs - universities like KCL, Edinburgh, Manchester make no mention of their poor performance in national rankings and focus mostly on their world ranking performance. KCL, for example, only mentions QS and THE ranking and ignores ARWU. I see no reason as to why this should be different for universities which perform better in national rankings, as is seen on the university pages of Exeter and Lancaster. As long as the world rankings are included somewhere in the wikipedia's page, such as the Rankings and Reputation section, I don't understand Banedon's persistent need to change the existing leading paragraph. Kioj156 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I see this dispute involves multiple things, not just the ARWU rankings. The THE Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences etc thing I removed because with the international rankings included, the text becomes quite bloated. I'm OK with leaving it there, but the section on rankings in the lede becomes big. Certain universities make no mention of their poor performance in national rankings, but the effect of this is that it makes the university looks better. I don't see any reason for this per WP:NPOV. Further national rankings only affect universities in that country, while the international ones allow comparison of UK universities with those from other countries. For that reason I would include the international rankings instead of the national ones if space becomes an issue, and since there are three major international rankings, all three should be included regardless of how poorly a university performs on any of them. Besides those familiar enough with the methodologies of the three rankings would understand why University of St Andrews' ARWU ranking is so poor.
That the articles on the other universities don't all mention the three international rankings is not an argument for this university not doing so - it simply means that the other articles should be changed. I would make a RfC spanning multiple sites to discuss this, but I don't know where to put it. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just skimmed the dispute on the talk page. I think that rankings, insofar as they are multifactorial in their methodology, can vary greatly, and are not necessarily concordant from one year to another, should probably not go in the lead para as a general rule for unis or other institutions. doing so places one at risk of cherry-picking on the basis of either most-recent or perceived authoritativeness of the rank-er. the prominence of a particular rank just seems guaranteed to provoke unproductive discussion. the lead para for a historical institution is supposed to reflect the least-varying characteristics of the wholeness of the institution, more or less, IMO. SubcommandanteLOL (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally I think rankings should be included in the lede paragraphs of universities. I expect to see them, and I would think any article on, say, Harvard University that does not mention that it is one of the most prestigious universities in the world (and cite rankings to back that statement up) would be incomplete. One problem is that there are lots of rankings out there, and cherry picking which ranking to use can make a university look better or worse. That's why I think the most objective thing to do is just to cite the three most widely-followed international rankings: the THE, QS and ARWU. Another problem is that the rankings change from year to year, sometimes dramatically so (like when QS changed their methodology a year ago). However I think this can be overlooked, and the articles updated every year - after all many other things like FIFA rankings also change every year. A final problem is that because the three rankings use such different methodologies, a university can do well on any of them and then poorly on the others. University of St Andrews is one such case. It's easy to understand this if one is familiar with the methodologies (see [12]), but without such knowledge it can be confusing. I do not know the best way to handle this - perhaps a footnote explaining the discrepancy could be used. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
that harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world is not in dispute, and one can find ample RS to support that, from many different time periods. It is one of the things that so far, has not changed much. I would expect that statement, "Harvard is considered by many to be among the most prestigious universities in the world" to be in the lead para, and uncontroversial.
rankings are a different beast entirely. They are solely for marketing, either of the body producing the rankings (to call attention either to themselves or a particular issue) or the institution itself. I would find their inclusion, perhaps as a separate section, to be completely uncontroversial, but to select one or another to place in the lead para, it will necessarily have to be cherry-picked, based on whether an editor finds those rankings compelling. Perhaps I think that the Washington Monthly's rankings of US schools based on educational value-for-money (as they have defined it) should be placed in the lead para then. then you have yourself the makings of an edit war.
Or perhaps the scenario is that someone thinks the ranking of the business school is important enough to put in the lead, based on someones rankings. should that be in addition to, or displace a hypothetical precipitous fall in ranking by the law school?
Perhaps Harvard wasn't the best example ... but an article on a not-so-prestigious university like the University of Washington should still be able to say it is firmly in the upper echelons on the prestige ladder. Giving the rankings in the lede also allows direct comparison against universities for which it would be difficult to impossible to find RS for, e.g. is the University of Washington more prestigious than the University of Lancaster? Looking at rankings would give an immediate answer, but one would be hard-pressed to find a source that compares those two universities explicitly.
Otherwise I don't strongly disagree with what you wrote: I still think the lede paragraphs should give the rankings, but I can understand why another reasonable editor might object to it. I would, therefore, start a RfC on this subject. Looking around WikiProject Universities [13] would be the best place to do this. If Kioj156 does not object (this involves more than the University of St Andrews), I'd say move this discussion there. Banedon (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Biryani
Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
General close. One of the editors has failed to respond after more than five days. The editors should be aware that dispute resolution is voluntary, and the failure to take part in dispute resolution does not establish a consensus for any particular content. The editors should be aware that the article is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA in the event of battleground or disruptive editing. If there are continuing content disputes, the next step may be a Request for Comments. Conduct disputes may be taken to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 24 June 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.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The User has been reverting my edits without any factual basis. I edited the Biryani wikipedia page saying that Biryani is found among the Muslim communites of the Indian subcontinent. But he kept changing it, even when I had it sourced, and the source was even used later in the wikipedia page. Everybody knows that Biryani is only found in the cuisines of South Asian Muslims. He also changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" even though the book said "Muslim," and Lucknow was free of the Mughal since 1724, and developed their own culinary tradition, Awadhi cuisine. I had listed 4 sources down, and he still wants to say it originates from the Indian subcontinent. But that's not giving all the information, that's like me saying Matzoh Ball soup originates from Germany, and not the Jews of Germany. It doesn't do any justice. If I can't edit Wikipedia with proper and credible sources and someone unjustifiably removing it, then how is it a free encyclopedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We talked about it in the talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Well, do your own research. Idk why this is a problem, giving credit to the people who make it should never be a problem. And the administrators proved unjust and didn't help.
Summary of dispute by Bartheslisa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Since 16th May, Hammad.511234 has started editing the page(Biryani), his focus has been on adding the phrase "Muslim Community" or "Muslim Origin" in the intro para of the page. Biryani is a rice dish from India, which has many theories and hypothesis regarding its origin and hence there is a whole section dedicated to its origin on the page itself, which has many theories mentioned, all of them have been sourced. Despite that, the user wants to add a phrase in the intro para, which suits his POV. His habit of POV pushing has been noted by other editors also, for example, here, here and here. I invited him on the talk page for the discussion, but instead of sticking to it, he kept on changing the intro para, even when the discussion was still on.
His point of contention is that as per him, Biryani is a dish only of and by "Muslims of India" only and that is how it should be presented on Wikipedia. He selectively use sources, which suits his narrative, and present his theory as the only true theory. The fact is that the dish's origin has many theories, all of which have been mentioned on the page, its up to the readers to draw the conclusion, not the editors to push their POV. Also the user seem to have a behavior problem, for which he was blocked during the discussion. Thanks. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Biryani 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 extended discussion on the article talk page. However, the filing party has not notified the other party of the filing of this case request. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editor. This case will be neither accepted nor declined at this time, waiting for the other party to be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey! The origin of Biryani may have many origins. But what's common is that all of these origins are associated with the South Asian Muslim community. I think it's unfair we don't give credit to the people who brought us this dish. Biryani is only found among South Asian Muslim cusines. And all the varieties have their origins among Muslims princely states or Kingdoms. I have never gone so far out into looking for any source that suits my narrative. It's a commonly known fact, that South Asian Muslims make Biryani. I would never say that Matzoh Ball soup originates from Germany, but it originates from the German Jewish community. How is it possible that nearly every Muslim community is associated with Biryani. In fact, a book sourced many times in the Biryani wikipedia page, talks about the origins of Biryani among the Muslim community. https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj305vbjYrNAhXnyoMKHQ6FCYwQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false
Now... the other thing I was concerned about... is that in the origin section, the user changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" centres, referring to both the cities of Lucknow, and Delhi. But that's wrong. First of all, the book, that was sourced, says "Muslim," so it was changing what the book said. Second... Lucknow, was independent of Mughal rule since 1724, and developed their own distinct "Awadhi cuisine." It would be an insult to that cuisine to call it "Mughal." If you need more information, you could simply search it up, it's a common fact. Thank you!Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, User:Hammad.511234 is keen on pushing his own POV as the final word, being selective about the sources and the related research. I have pointed to him, the ORIGIN SECTION, but the user wants to push his POV as the only acceptable theory. As you can see, user also has a view on history of the region and is being assertive about it too. Mixing religion with ethnicity and culture, calling names who do not agree with him, asserting that only his views as the FACTS, unfortunately this has been the drill on the other side. Barthateslisa (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Since it is clear that the other editor knows that there is discussion here, this case can be opened for moderated discussion at any time by a volunteer moderator. Until then, editors are advised to discuss on the article talk page rather than here. When a moderator opens this thread, discussion will begin here instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Technically the user would be pushing his POVS, if he's not willing to give credit to the people the dish originates from. Sometimes Religion, creates a separate cultural identity for people. And that is seen all over India, especially among Indian Muslims and Christians. My statement wasn't the only theory, as it worked with all of the origins, it wasn't dismissing any of the mentioned theories. Quoting Prathiba Karan, the lady from whom much of the page is sourced, and undoubtedly one of the most famous books on the history of Biryani:"The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." As for the other concern, in the origin section, the user changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" centres, referring to both the cities of Lucknow, and Delhi. But that's wrong. First of all, the book, that was sourced, says "Muslim," so it was changing what the book said. Second... Lucknow, was independent of Mughal rule since 1724, and developed their own distinct "Awadhi cuisine." It would be an insult to that cuisine to call it "Mughal." If you need more information, you could simply search it up, it's a common fact. Thank you!Hammad.511234 (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I am now opening this case for discussion. This seems to be a dispute about a statement of fact involving the origin of the dish, so it should be simple to resolve. To start, could both of you concisely state what you want to include with sources? Remember that this discussion is only about content, not editor behavior and that personal attacks are never allowed on Wikipedia. KSFTC04:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey! Thank you so much for reopening the conversation. The problem is, is that the user kept on reverting my edits to the Biryani page. There are two issues here. First, in the origin section, it said "In North India, different varieties of biryani developed in the Muslim centers of Delhi (Mughlai cuisine), Lucknow (Awadhi cuisine) and other small principalities," but the user changed it to "Mughal." First of all, I did not put this statement into the page. Secondly, the book that was sourced, used the word "Muslim," so it's wrong. Thirdly, Lucknow, had been independent of the Mughals since 1724. The line clearly says "Awadhi cuisine," because, Awadhi cuisine, developed a distinct taste, and Mughlai cuisine stayed in and round Delhi. Now on the topic of where the dish is found. It's a well known fact, that Biryani, no matter how popular it may be, is a dish, only found in the cuisines of South Asian Muslims. In this case, "Muslim" is not faith based, but cultural. Just like how Jains eat Satvik food. I'm not going to say that Matzah ball soup originates from Germany, it's found among the Jews of Germany. I'm not going to say Bean pie is American. It's found among the African American Muslim population. Saying that Biryani is from the Indian subcontinent is discrediting the people who brought the dish to us. Now I'm going to quote Prathiba Karan, whose book on the origin of Biryani is one of the most popular, and is sourced throughout the article. In fact, the first few pages of her book state: "The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." I hope you understand my point. Thank you! Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is not a discussion about editor behavior. Can you quote what text specifically you think the article should include, with sources? Barthateslisa, can you do the same? Both of you should check this page regularly. KSFTC04:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey! The article must include "Muslim" centres, since the book sourced says "Muslim" centres in the Biryani Origin section. The source is the book, and factual knowledge that Awadhi cuisine has its own flavour, and Lucknow was independent of the Mughals since 1724. The beginning of the page, must include the fact that Biryani has its origins among South Asian Muslims. http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." this book is sourced many times in the wikipedia page, and is one of the most famous books on the history of Biryani out there... https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryan Even if you check all the native variations of Biryani in the page itself, they all are associated with their respective Muslim community. Please note, that South Asian Muslims do have different cultural identities that other South Asian ethnic groups. They all make Biryani, eat Kebabs, make Sheer Kurma on Eid (Vast Majority). The affinity to Persianized Muslim rulers might have been the cause. Anyways... it would be a shame if we don't give credit to who deserve it. Thank you. Oh, and btw, you don't have to do any extensive research to find out the facts. Hammad.511234 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask for your comments or opinions on the subject; I asked you to quote the text you want to include with sources. You can format it just as you think it should be in the article. KSFTC16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Ahhhh, okay. For the Beginning of the page: Biryani (pronounced [bɪr.jaːniː]), also known as biriyani or biriani, is a mixed rice dish with its origins among the South Asian Muslim community. It is popular throughout the subcontinent and among the diaspora from the region. It is made with spices, rice, lentils, meat and vegetables.[1]
For the Origin page: The origin of the dish is uncertain. In North India, different varieties of biryani developed in the Muslim centers of Delhi (Mughlai cuisine), Lucknow (Awadhi cuisine) and other small principalities. In South India, where rice is more widely used as a staple food; several distinct varieties of biryani emerged from Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Karachi. Andhra is the only region of South India that does not have many native varieties of biryani.[1]
For the first one, I originally put 4 sources. Hammad.511234 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Barthateslisa: I opened this case almost five days ago, and you have not responded or indicated that you are willing to discuss the issue here. If you want to, you are expected to check this page regularly. Dispute resolution is voluntary, so, if you are not willing to enter it, I would appreciate it if you would let us know here. This case will be archived in less than 24 hours, and I do not plan to extend that time if you do not respond. KSFTC 19:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am closing this case, as the other involved editor failed to respond. KSFTC17:23, 23 June 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:Honor Oak
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Premature. This case has not been properly filed because it does not list all editors, but, more importantly, there has not yet been extensive discussion on the talk page, which is required prior to discussion here. If discussion resumes on the talk page and is inconclusive, this case may be refiled at a later date. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 15 June 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 tried to discuss this issue on a talk page already. - unfortunately 146.199.66.236 (talk·contribs) deleted my attempt at this.
An edit war in the "external links" section of a local area page which appears to be the owner of one forum (se23.com) trying to suppress or demote a link to a newer, more prominent local forum (se23.life). A resolution was attempted - attempting to start dialogue on the Talk page, but the anon account linked to the old (se23.com) forum has deleted this section of the Talk page, preventing the discussion. His/her edits are here:
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.
General close. There doesn't seem to be ongoing discussion at this noticeboard about the article. There has only been one comment by one editor in the past 72 hours. No one has supported the idea that the constitution is the oldest in history. If there is disagreement about any other content matter, discussion on the article talk page is in order. If that is inconclusive, another request for moderated discussion here can be filed, or there can be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 26 June 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.
The issue at present seems to be my removal of the sentence “The Constitution of Medina is the first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” from the article Constitution of Medina. The sentence seems to me to be an exceptional claim as well as a poster sticker slogan. It is supported by only one source, which is, as far as can be concluded, not quoted in any other work and does not seem to be derived from any other work. Furthermore it’s not a work in the field of law or history, but a socio political book. Many qualified historians generally regard constitutional documents from Greece to be the first of the kind involved and sources that implicitly or explicitly say so are manifold and not particularly hard to find. Removing or altering the wiki voiced exceptional claim seems like a no-brainer in the light of these circumstances. The process on the talk page has however been difficult.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've been looking for sources and suggesting different language when possible.
How do you think we can help?
My propositions on going forward:
Leave the article as it is now and make no further attempts to change the language of the sentence. (Which would have my preference).
Construct a sentence in which both opinions are mentioned with sources but without Wiki-voice. I've prepared one (see below in the talk section).
Restore the removed sentence and add POV and content dispute tags. This would obviously not have my preference but it would give other editors the chance to edit
Summary of dispute by Alexis Ivanov
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Pincrete
I am only peripherally involved but make these suggestions, firstly to seperate two claims. The first is 'first written constitution', which is supported by a significant number of sources, but by no means all, or even a majority. The second is the claim 'of democracy', which I agree with Hebel, appears to be only supported by one, non-expert source. I also point out that the constitution article does not claim ANY document is 'first', though 'Constitution of Medina' is listed there.. The present impasse, in my brief connection with the page, appears to be caused by Alexis Ivanov's unwillingness to budge from an untenable position. I don't favour Hebel's 'both sides of the argument' solution since I don't think it necessary to this topic. I would favour a form of wording that simply gives due weight to the fact that some historians have made the 'first written constitution' claim, and what about the Constitution of Medina makes then think it. This, I believe would most usefully inform the reader. Pincrete (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
An idea would be: “Sociologists Khatab and Bouma have described it as the “first Constitution of democracy in the history of constitutional rule” in their book “Democracy in Islam",[2] Historians however mostly argue that previous constitutions from Ancient Greece qualify as the first democratic constitutions."[3][4][5][6][7]
Of course other sentences and different wording is possible also.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
^Wolin SS. 1994. Norm and Form: The Constitutionalizing of Democracy. In Athenian political
thought and the reconstruction of American democracy, ed. JP Euben, J Wallach, J Ober, pp. 29-
58. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Hello User:Pincrete Thanks for adding your summary. The point is that User:Alexis Ivanov doesn’t seem to agree with Hamidullah’s “first written constitution” claim, although I believe User:Countertime does. I’ve made a suggestion about that (citing both points about that as well) towards CounterTime as can be seen on the talkpage. But that would probably not be acceptable for Ivanov. I'm also not sure about the "first written constitution" claim being made by "historians". None of the people mentioned by CounterTime seem to be historians, except for Amyn B Sajoo that mentions the opinion without commenting on it himself. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hebel: I'm no longer involved in the discussion, if you want that claim to be removed despite WP:RSs mentioning it, and despite the existence of a straightforward solution that doesn't violate WP:NPOV which is "Many sources speak of the CM as being the first C in history, however others deem the Athenian C to be the first one."
And as I said earlier, please don't ping me anymore.
Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page. The editors in question have been notified of this filing, although one, not listed, has declined to participate. This case is available to be opened by a volunteer for participation by the editors who have not declined. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution, and overly long statements (while often satisfying their author) do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth (threaded) discussion; address your comments to the moderator and to the community. I will check on the status of this case at least every 24 hours. Every editor must check it and respond to questions within 48 hours. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress (since the purpose of discussion is to resolve the content of the article). It is best not to discuss at the article talk page, because comments there may not be considered in discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Will each editor please state briefly what the issue or issues are? I understand that one of the issues has to do with a statement that the Constitution of Medina is either the oldest or one of the oldest written constitutions in legal history. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
First statement by Hebel
The issues that have past are the assertions that the Constitution of Medina is:
The first Constitution of Democracy in the history of constitutional rule, and:
The first written Constitution ever.
Both claims are contradicted by historians. The first claim is made by a socio political book. The second one by a number of writers on Islam. Both claims seem exceptional and the supporting sources are problematic, especially in view of the contradicting ones that are by qualified historians. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
First statement by Pincrete
Unfortunately the two main editors have chosen not to take part. My own position is closer to Hebel's than to either of them. My only disagreement with Hebel is that there is no point in mentioning 'first constitution' only in order to 'refute' it. I take my cue from the Constitution article where no document is listed as first, IMO it's a bit of a 'who invented the wheel?' question. Define what you mean by wheel then supply your answer. Does a Constitution need to be a 'declarative' document? Or can it simply codify existing practices? If text were included, it should attempt to say what the Con of Med's position is in constitutional history is or is sometimes described as being. Clearly important, but by no means generally regarded as 'first'. First, second, third is not likely to be supported by the proponderance of sources iro any document. In the absence of the 'missing editors', this should probably be closed as neither assertion to go in the article, assuming Hebel is in agreement. Pincrete (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Threaded discussion collapsed
I would be fine with me if the sentence in question is just left out. Any attempt on my part to construct a "compromise sentence" stands or falls with the idea that other editors insist on something about this matter being in the article at all. As they are not participating in the process, it would be fine with me to leave the article as it presently is. Without any mention of something being the first of anything. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
It appears that none of the participating editors support the inclusion of a statement that the constitution is the oldest written constitution in history. The article at present doesn't make that statement. Unless there is dissent, we can conclude that there is consensus not to make such a statement. Is there any opinion as to whether to state that the document is one of the oldest written constitutions in history? If so, such a statement will need at least one source. Do any of the editors have any other issues to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Second statement by Hebel
Although the notion of saying it is "one" of the oldest constitutions ever, is interesting, I rather doubt that a source can be found for it. Earlier in the process I suggested: the first constitution, since antiquity, (i.o.w. after antiquity had ended) or some variant thereof. Remember that the Athenian Constitutions are about 1000 years older than the Medina Constitution. I suppose that "since antiquity" could implicitly be supported, but if there is a direct and explicit source to say so? I don't know.... Speaking about other issues. I slightly worry about the fact that the other editor most involved has apparently decided not to take part... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:24, 22 June 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:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain
Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
General close. There are two problems here, either of which would warrant closure of this case. First, the only editor who has taken part in this discussion continues to complain about the filing party by name, although there are no real conduct issues and although, in this forum, one should comment on content, not contributors. However, second, the filing party, after filing, appears to have taken a 5-day wikibreak, so that this is not going anywhere. This case can be reopened here if the various parties agree that they can discuss in a timely manner without complaining and naming names (when there really is no conduct issue), or they can go back to the talk page, or a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 28 June 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.
The section 'Romano-Brittonic' peoples' fate in the south-east claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid. Therefore, a competition of the two theories is not shown to be existent in this Wikipedia article. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false. Urselius attempts to refute me by mentioning genocide. I have stated that both theories of Freeman and Allen are compatible with genocide. Allen's theory of a native Celtic contribution could still be true with genocide having happened in some places. Genocide does not mean that the natives were destroyed - only part of them were destroyed. Urselius has failed to respond to this logically. Gordon410 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have written a research paper proving my point, and I have sent a help ticket.
How do you think we can help?
Eliminate the word "competing" in the article, or explain how the theories are competing.
Summary of dispute by Urselius
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The competing theories are self-evidently not compatible with each other. The word 'genocide' unambiguously means an attempt to destroy an ethnic group, essentially by killing its members. This is what Hitler and the Nazi regime tried to do to European Jews and the Romany people during WWII. If invading Anglo-Saxons had operated a system of genocide against the native Romano-British population, i.e. killed them on a very large scale, this would prevent there being any significant Romano-British (Celtic) ancestry in the modern English people. In complete contradiction to this, any evidence suggesting that the modern English people have a significant amount of Romano-British ancestry precludes any suggestion that a genocide ever occurred. This is a very simple example of logic, there is no grey area here. Urselius (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Gordon 410 has undertaken some research and produced a synthesis drawn from a fairly limited range of the available scholarship, and he wants to impose this synthesis on the article as being "what really happened". Anyone looking through the article will clearly see that the subject is a complex one, with many divergent and competing scholarly theories and viewpoints. It is not the place of any single Wikipedia editor to impose his or her personal constructs on any article. Urselius (talk)
Summary of dispute by Jheald
I pretty much agree with everything Urselius has written above.
To quote a major genetic study that made the pages of Nature last year (Leslie et al[14]): "There has been ongoing historical and archaeological controversy about the extent to which the Saxons replaced the existing Romano-British populations", continuing that "Earlier genetic analyses, based on limited samples and specific loci, gave conflicting results." Detailed discussion can be found in various reviews of the archaeological literature. I don't have the links to hand, but basically estimates of the Saxon contribution to current English DNA have been anywhere from 5% (cultural domination by a small elite) to 100% (total population replacement), with strong schools of thought clustering at different points in that range.
Gordon 410 needs to recognise that the job of Wikipedia is to present and review the different positions in the literature, not to try to come up with a new original single harmonised telling of our own. It's very hard to know how to respond to a long screed of original research (WP:OR) such as Gordon's last contribution on the talk page -- which is why I didn't. Jheald (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Macrakis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain 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 extended slow-motion discussion on the article talk page over the past several months. This case is ready for moderated discussion after the other two editors are notified, if they agree to moderated discussion (which is voluntary). The filing party must notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues (even if they make the poster feel better, but the purpose is to communicate). Each participant should check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours and should comment within 48 hours on any timely questions. Do not edit the article (except for minor edits) while discussion is in progress. It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page while discussion is in progress here, because talk page comments may be ignored. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not reply directly to other editors. Address your comments to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. (The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to deal with the other editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. In this post, it isn't possible to separate comment on content from comment on contributors. Please restate the content issues without addressing contributors. If there really is a conduct allegation, we can close this thread and go to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The only genuine issue with the article content is that an editor who greatly extended the content was not particularly scrupulous in changing the wording from his source texts. There is an unacceptable degree of plagiarism in parts of the text as it stands. The content itself, this matter aside, is comprehensive and well arranged, covers most aspects thoroughly: historical sources (what little there is), archaeology, language/linguistics, plus genetics and other molecular evidence. Gordon 410's "problem" with the text does not really exist, it is his misapprehension that a complex and scholarly diverse subject requires a definite and simplistic synthesis. No serious scholar in the field puts forward their opinions on this subject as being cast-iron fact, precisely because most evidence is open to differing interpretation. The polar extremes of the interpretations of the evidence have differing origins and to characterise them as being solely the product of two particular scholars is wrong. The idea that the Anglo-Saxons wiped-out or drove the native Romano-Britons into Wales and Cornwall dates back to the Victorian Age and earlier. It was raised as an answer to the fact that English contains very few Celtic loan-words, and to pander to Victorian ideas of the moral and intellectual superiority, in most things, of the English over the peoples of the 'Celtic Fringe'. Though even the Victorians did allow that the Celts had a poetic genius. In contrast, the thesis that the English are largely descended from Romano-Britons who became Anglicised in speech and culture, is a product of scholarly work since c. 1955. Archaeologists became wary of attaching ethnicity to pots and brooches, not everyone buried with an Anglian brooch was necessarily an Anglo-Saxon, linguists recognised shifts in pronunciation and grammar that could represent Celtic influences on Old English, and geneticists became able to look at the DNA of populations and infer genetic histories. To date there is no definitive answer to "what happened" when Sub-Roman Britain became Early Anglo-Saxon England. The article reflects this, but Gordon 410 seems unhappy with the lack of definitives, seeking to augment the text with his very definite opinions and syntheses. Urselius (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case we need to go to the conduct forum. Whilst Gordon 410 has not interfered with the content of the article itself, his lengthy proposals on the talk page have met with no support from any of the editors who are actively interested in the article, indeed his proposals have only met with opposition. I initially tried to inform Gordon 410 very politely and at some length that his proposals were not helpful, and indeed went against Wikipedia rules on 'own research', but found that I could make no impression on him. I regret to say that my responses, and those of other editors, became increasingly terse and irritated. In the end I stopped responding, or even looking at his posts. As far as I can impute motives to any other person, Gordon 410 wants to impose his vision of "what really happened" on key parts of the article, particularly the lead. He also wants to discuss many paragraphs that he has issues with, demanding that they be clarified or changed to his satisfaction. He most definitely has little functional knowledge about what Wikipedia articles should and should not contain and how Wikipedia functions in regard to scholarly sources, balance of arguments on contentious issues, and co-operative editing. Gordon 410 is certainly enthusiastic, but his enthusiasm is largely misplaced, and if it were to be allowed to impact on the article in question it would most certainly be to its detriment. I have over three decades of interest in this topic and own at least 25 books directly related to it, and many more including material concerning it. Furthermore, I am a geneticist and know personally some of the authors of the DNA-based papers quoted in the text. Overall, I would claim to have a good layman's knowledge of the subject, with a professional level of knowledge on some aspects. Urselius (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
It appears that one of the editors thinks that there are conduct issues. Based on what the other editor says, it doesn't sound like there are conduct issues, so much as unwillingness to compromise. It does sound as though one editor may want to use Wikipedia for original research. Other than that, based on the summary above, I think that this case can continue if all of the editors will discuss content only and will refrain from discussing what they perceive as the problems with the other editors. Read the original research policy and the boomerang essay. Will each of the other editors please summarize in one paragraph what they see as the issues with the content of the article, without addressing conduct? We (not just I, but the parties) don't want this to go to WP:ANI, because that usually leads to more heat than light but may lead to blocks. We don't want this to go to the edit-warring noticeboard, because that may lead to blocks. Can we try one last time to summarize the issues without conduct allegations? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Freeman states that, I paraphrase but the book is available on Google Books, there can be very little Roman or Welsh blood in the English because Old English had little Latin or Celtic in it, he also says quite explicitly that the Anglo-Saxons killed or drove out all the native Britons, except for those they kept as slaves. In contradiction to this, more recent work has suggested that the bulk of the modern population of England is derived from its pre-Roman inhabitants. That the English people were created by a process of acculturation by the mass of the British to the culture and language a tiny minority of elite incomers from the Germanic parts of the continent. These are the polar opposites in the spectrum of what is envisaged as happening when post-Roman Britain became early Anglo-Saxon England. Am I allowed to refer to other editors by name? I cannot see how to discuss this without doing so, therefore I shall. Gordon 410 is asserting that these two polar opposites, recognised as opposites by all scholarship in the field, are reconcilable with each other through a sort of "genocide-light" scenario. There are certainly scholarly positions between these two extremes, and they are explored in the article, where larger numbers of incomers are envisaged, or where a form of apartheid between the communities was practised. They are all there already. Where is the content problem? There isn't one. We are all on a fool's errand here. Urselius (talk) 15:28, 24 June 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:Neoconservatism#Hillary Clinton
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in 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.
I have tried adding reliable sources, even a scholarly article, but Rjensen repeatedly reverts my edits, without reading the sources, misrepresents the sources and his edits, posts inflammatory statements in the discussion, and refuses to legitimately take part in the discussion.
How do you think we can help?
I'm really not sure. Rjensen is an established editor who is reversing my edits simply because he disagrees with them, and hasn't offered any substantiated criticism. I have tried to provide increasingly reliable sources and more direct argument, but he literally disregards it.
Summary of dispute by Rjensen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The statement I deleted violated wp:BLP. that ironclad rule states: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research..... Contentious material about living persons ...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. No source is quoted that says "Hillary Clinton is a neocon." Adding the allegation to Wikipedia the week she won the Democratic nomination is what POV politics looks like. None of the cites [currently numbered 124-127] state that Clinton is a neocon. They say neocons hated her at the start but also think she is better at foreign policy than Obama. note 124 by Heilbrunn cites the Weekly Standard (a neocon voice) that says she is an enemy [“be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”] Heilbrunn emphasizes Robert Kagan who years ago was one of 25 members of an advisory committee to the State Department when she was secretary; It says Kagan is now associated with liberal think tanks, that he avoids neo-con associations, and that he is now a "neo-neocon". But it does not say that Hillary is either a neocon or a neo-neocon. The closest Heilbrunn comes is saying It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. note 125 quotes lots of people and NONE say that she is a neocon. It clearly separates Hillary from the Neocons [But some neocons are so disgusted with his rejection of foreign policy establishment thinking that they’ve declared the unthinkable: They’re going to vote for Hillary Clinton.] note 126 says "Neocons and Liberal Interventionists — Like Hillary — Are Converging on Foreign Policy" -- ie it distinguished her as a "Liberal Interventionists" separate from Neocons. #127 is a right-wing blog not a published reliable secondary source. It does not state she is a neocon. (it says Clinton espouses a worldview that could be described as “liberal interventionist”). Bottom line: fails the BLP ironclad test. Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
to summarize: it is wrong list Hillary Clinton as a neoconservative--no RS says that. They say she is on the liberal side.Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 70.161.173.99
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Neoconservatism#Hillary Clinton 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:Kodak Black
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Administrative close. No dispute topics listed. Please feel free to relist and specify what issues are in dispute, not leave it for a DRN volunteer to figure out. Remember that there must be extensive talk page discussion in order to seek help here; if the issues in dispute have only been discussed in edit comments, that's not enough. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:19, 1 July 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.
I've been struggling to avoid an edit war at the Kodak Black article, but I'm finding it hard to keep up. If an experienced editor could have a look at the article's edit history I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I would have written a note on this editor's talk page, but there has been some incivility so I figured best not to.
How do you think we can help?
Please have a look at the edit history, and some of the comments by the other user. I'm trying to keep unsourced material off the article but it's a struggle.
Summary of dispute by Xboxmanwar
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kodak Black 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:Unseen character#Maris_Crane
Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments5 people in 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.
Editor(s?) are excluding Vera from Cheers and Maris from Frasier from inclusion as unseen characters even though the creators of both characters explicitly said the characters are unseen and deliberately kept so in the documentary on the making of Frasier “Behind the Couch: The Making of Frasier”. The producers state that they initially did not want to make Niles's wife Maris an unseen character because they did not want to draw parallels to Vera, Norm's wife on Cheers. They originally intended that she would appear after several episodes, but were enjoying writing excuses for her absence that eventually it was decided she would remain unseen, and after the increasingly eccentric characteristics ascribed to her, no real actress could portray her.
The exclusionists base their argument on direct viewing of episodes in which the characters' faces are deliberately obscured and they have no dialogue, which is done for comedic effect to capitalize on the unseen character status. The exclusionists are interpreting a primary source and applying their own judgement over whether it meets an unsourced definition. This is original research.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Issue has been discussed for almost 2 years with no consensus.
How do you think we can help?
1. Provide guidance on scope of "unseen character" definition
2. Is viewing an episode and deciding that a character whose face is deliberately hidden and who does not have dialogue does not meet an unsourced criteria an instance of Original research or synthesis
3. Should a character's creator's opinion that the character is an "unseen character" trump Wikipedians' interpretion of whether the character is or not?
Summary of dispute by Quis separabit?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GretDrabba
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Unseen character#Maris_Crane 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 limited recent discussion on the article talk page, but not really enough to warrant moderated discussion here. There has been off-and-on discussion of these characters for two years, but the recent discussion has been minimal, so that further discussion would be in order. I am leaving this request standing, neither accepting nor declining it, to permit further talk page discussion. Also, one of the editors listed as a party, first, doesn't exist (is misspelled), and, second, doesn't seem to have participated. The filing party is requested to recheck the list of editors. After further discussion on the talk page, moderated discussion may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the nonexistent party, I am a bit confused. There is a Quis separabit? who left a message on my talk page, but when I click on his signature it goes to the page of a user named Rms125a@hotmail.com. This latter user is also the one who reverted my edits twice. I believe they are one and the same editor, someone who has created confusion many times in the past by insisting on keeping his grandfathered username that is not in accord with policy but having another username in his signature. There is also an IP address that makes very similar arguments to Quis separabit?/rms125a@hotmail.com, and may be yet a third manifestation of the same person. So while there is the appearance of three people opposed to Vera and Maris being included, in reality there may only be one. I don't know if this qualifies as sockpuppetry or not, but it causes a lot of confusion, and also appears to be a case of page ownership. I think this multiple identities issue has muddied the waters on the talk page, and it along with the apparent page ownership are why I think it would be easier to handle this here rather than untangling all those issues on the article talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would like to know which IP address is being imputed to me (see [15]). Also, as most editors should know, many usernames (i.e. Rms125a@hotmail.com) are not the same as users' signatures (i.e. Quis separabit). Quis separabit?13:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - There are either two or three editors in addition to the filing party. There is one editor who has been properly notified. There is also another editor who uses a confusing signature that bears no resemblance to their user name, which has been grandfathered. They have not been notified, nor listed properly, because the filing party misspelled one form of their name. There is also an IP address which may be either the editor with the confusing signature logged out or another unregistered editor. They must be notified, because they might be another editor altogether. (Also, editing logged out is only sockpuppetry if there is reason to deceive. Normally editing logged out is carelessness. It is sockpuppetry if the original editor is blocked or banned, or if the original editor is trying to give the false impression of numbers, e.g., in an RFC or AFD. None of these apply here, so that either the IP is a different editor, or is accidentally editing logged out.) Discussion should go back to the talk page for now. If it continues to be inconclusive, the filing party should notify the IP and the other editor. (If they request help notifying the editor with the confusing username and signature, they are likely to get help. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)))
I have notified the IP on all the addresses I saw on the article talk page in the hope that at least one of these dynamic IPs will come up the next time the person comes onto this site, and they will see the notification. The request is to participate in the new section I started at the end of the article talk page, with the information that there is an open DRN that will be continued if consensus isn't reached. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer question - Let's get to the one question, and it isn't an allegation of a conduct issue. Have you, User:Rms125@hotmail.com, been sometimes editing the Unseen character article and talk page logged out? (By the way, it isn't a static IP address. It changes within the block, as is often the case.) As you will notice above, I have stated that, if that is happening, it is just a mistake and not a conduct issue. If you have been edited logged out, you have been notified of the filing, and are asked to be more careful to log in before editing. If not, the filing party must notify the IP editor, and the IP editor is advised to establish an account. In any case, please go back to the article talk page and have at least two new rounds of discussion. I realize that this issue has been going on for years and would like to get it taken care of. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
On rare occasions I have made edits while not logged in, usually after logging out and then going back and resuming without realizing. It is very rare, and sometimes when it happens I will make a consecutive edit after logging back in and leave a note in the edit summary explaining what happened. Quis separabit?01:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That being said, these ([16], [17]) are not my edits. I don't even know or care about the stuff these edits entail. I was never a Cheers or Frasier fanatic. Quis separabit?01:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW: This is my (Rms125a@hotmail.com) IP when I am not logged in. I know it's dynamic but it should give you an idea as to the range: 68.175.105.181 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - We clearly have four parties to this controversy, three registered editors (one of whom has a confusing signature) and an unregistered editor in the 99.* block. We have had marginal recent discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, moderated discussion here is in order. Any further comments here about who the parties are, or any further discussion here prior to new discussion on the article talk page, may be hatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - In addition to the filing party, there are multiple editors who appear from time to time to disagree with or revert the edits of the filing party, but not often enough to engage in the sort of dialogue that should precede discussion here, let alone to engage in discussion here. The filing party has named two registered editors, one of whom is active, and one of whom hasn't edited in 2016. I will leave this thread open for one or two more days, but am not optimistic, since the filing party has posted at the article talk page and has had no response. Normally I would advise that no one edit the article while discussion is in progress here. However, since discussion is not in progress here, my advice to the filing party is to edit boldly, and, if reverted, then there can be real dialogue on the talk page. If that fails to resolve the issue, a Request for Comments, which is binding, would be the next step. See Bold, Revert, Discuss. If that fails, a neutrally worded Request for Comments (which is really a Request for Consensus) is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You suggested an RFC twice. Did you mean to try DRN again first if discussion happens and fails? KSFTC13:18, 1 July 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:Farmaan
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Procedural close for two reasons. First, discussion at the talk page has been inadequate. Second, one editor requests further discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 1 July 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.
Address issue of subjective content of plot in this case (comparing the plot that was deleted). Perhaps better to see what was deleted and then judge.
Summary of dispute by George Custer's Sabre
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My concern is that the plot was excessive, not neutral in its presentation, and unreferenced. I don't feel really strongly about this, however, and won't edit war because of it. It's hardly a dispute. It should just be dealt with by talk page discussion. Cheers, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Farmaan 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.
Conduct dispute. DRN does not handle conduct disputes and whether or whether not an action is vandalism is a conduct dispute. Speak to an adminstrator or file a complaint at ANI to complain or seek advice about conduct issues. Alternatively, feel free to refile here focusing only on the content question and without discussing other editors' conduct. Be sure to notify the other involved editors if you do and remember that if they do not choose to participate here that the case will be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
User HalcyonHaylon and now IP 68.204.96.62 are removing content that has been worked over extensively. The content is controversial, but has been the subject of much careful editing. The controversial section includes the paragraph:
NOTE:
If you are considering removing a link, you MUST provide strong, valid
reasons for removing it. That you don't like or agree with the link is
not sufficient. This page is regularly patrolled, and unsupported removals (or irrelevant additions) WILL BE REVERTED.
Which has been removed.
The users
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Reverts with explanatory descriptions
How do you think we can help?
Does their behaviour constitute vandalism?
I see that they don't agree with the content, but blatant removal of content that they disagree with is not right.
If it is considered vandalism, then I would consider blocking appropriate.
Summary of dispute by HalcyonHaylon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 68.204.96.62
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.
Pro-Beijing camp
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Procedural close for two reasons. First, the discussion at the article talk page has not continued, and at this point is not sufficient to warrant moderated discussion here. Second, the filing party has not listed and notified all of the editors. Discussion should continue at the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case may be refiled here later with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 7 July 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.
The user involved insisted naming the location of dispute to "親建制派", but not "建制派"， which is offending since the earlier one is seldom use, but the later one is much more common.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Opening Talk, Help desk, but no appropriate response
How do you think we can help?
Stop naming the location of dispute to "親建制派", and respect naming the location of dispute to "建制派"
Summary of dispute by User:Lmmnhn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pro-Beijing camp discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article taThk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but it has been brief and not has been long enough to warrant moderated discussion here. Also, the editors in question include two registered editors and an unregistered editor who may be one of the registered editors failing to log in. The filing unregistered editor has only identified one of the registered editors. The filing party is expected to list themselves as well as the other parties, and is also expected to notify the other parties, which has not been done. This case will be left in a new status for at least 24 hours to allow further discussion on the article talk page and to allow the other parties to be listed and notified. (If the filing party is a registered editor who failed to log in, they should identify themselves.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 5 July 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:Zika fever#research
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
General close. The filing editor wished to discuss a dispute with an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked. If the filing editor wishes to discuss with other editors, they should first discuss on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, they may then again request moderated discussion here. Also, the filing party is advised to register an account; it really does have advantages. This is closed for now as a stale and moot dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 13 July 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.
I've added (revision 725562320) information about research in antiviral treatment which I've found interesting and important for the article to describe real state of things (note that it isn't just me, another user added info about the same breakthrough too, revision 725583994). User Jytdog removed it and insist on it not being added.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've tried to discuss the issue on the article talk page but the response I got doesn't deal with my arguments (except saying false about the one about primary sources), so I see no point in trying further.
How do you think we can help?
I'm not sure this whole process works ... either someone can explain to me what is wrong with my POV, how am I mistaken with my arguments (in better words than "you added noise") so I can accept that I am wrong and it was a bad idea to add such information, or either someone explains the opposite to Jytdog and my contribution (revision 725562320) will be added back to the article.
Summary of dispute by Jytdog
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Zika fever#research discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - I am about to close this request but am leaving it open briefly if the filing editor wishes to change the parties. User:Jytdog has been blocked since 20 June. Any discussion between the filing editor and Jytdog is both stale and moot. This noticeboard is for discussions that are current (not about issues that happened three weeks ago and haven't continued). There has been discussion of the subject, in other talk page threads, by other editors. If anyone wants to add those editors within the next 24 hours, this case may (or may not) be ready for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I haven't noticed that the opposing party has been blocked meanwhile. The discussion got stale because I went mostly offline; when I checked back, I saw the reply which I've found impossible to react to meaningfully, so I've looked for some sort of escalation. But the fact that it is three weeks old doesn't change anything on the fact that I still think that the information in question is worthy to be added. I do not see any other discussion of the subject of antiviral compound (where is that?), however, there is a thread about vaccine which is somehow similar, and it resulted in keeping that information with some wording changes - so, maybe involving User:Gorthian would be good? --83.240.62.72 (talk) 22:24, 12 July 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:Mahmoud Abbas#WP:RECENTISM
Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
Closed as failed. This discussion was getting bogged down due to commentary on contributors and to meta-discussion about commentary on contributors. The moderator tried to restart this, but then noticed, in review, that one of the editors, in attempting to revert some discussion here (which is not really the job of a participant editor but only of a moderator), accidentally reverted other edits, such as the close of the Zika fever discussion. As a result, this discussion is being closed as failed, just having gotten too messy. Here are some thoughts on how to go forward. First, the parties may resume discussion on the article talk page. If that discussion is inconclusive, they may again, without prejudice, request moderated discussion here. Alternatively, a neutrally worded Request for Comments may be posted. Second, conduct issues should be taken to Arbitration Enforcement, a quicker way of resolving them than WP:ANI. For now, this case is closed as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 13 July 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.
A politician made a statement, expressing a point of view and leading to controversy. Two editors prevented [redacted] the addition of a short, well-sourced and neutrally worded paragraph with this information to the article about this politician, on the stated grounds that it is recentism.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Just talkpage discussion.
How do you think we can help?
Advice on the proper balance between the need to provide information about views and controversies and the danger of recentism, in general, and in this case specifically.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In the specific case the dispute is whether or not up to 10% of the prose of the article on a politician who has been active for upwards of 60 years should be devoted to coverage of one speech that he gave recently, a rather inconsequential speech at that, or even if it merits any coverage in the article. My position is that this is a trivial piece of information and does not merit any mention at all, and a collection of news stories over the past few days doesnt change that. The larger issue is how current news articles factor into biographies. There is a tendency to give immediate attention, often undue attention, to whatever is in the news right now. But this is a biography in an encyclopedia, it isnt the results page of a google news search. In two months this isnt going to be mentioned anywhere besides the Wikipedia article if it is included. nableezy - 06:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sepsis II
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Mahmoud Abbas#WP:RECENTISM 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 article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. This case is ready to be opened by a volunteer moderator. Please remember to be civil both before and after the case is opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I've offered what amounts to a Third Opinion at the article talk page. I do not need to be added as a party here, however, as I will not be participating further in the dispute, either here or at the article or talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. The rules are as follows. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements often do not clarify the issues. (They may make the poster feel better, but that does not help resolve the issues.) Every participant is expected to check on this case and respond to any questions at least every 48 hours. I will check every 24 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discuss the article here, in response to questions by the moderator, not on the article talk page, because comments on the article talk page may be overlooked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Will each editor please summarize, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? (If the recent comment by TransporterMan on the talk page resolved things, you may say that you think so. Otherwise, please summarize the issue or issues concisely.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The politician in question made a controversial statement which is notable, and in my opinion will remain notable. The statement is another example of lies and provocative statements about Jews by this politician which he had to detract, and as such helps paint the overall picture of him. If the paragraph is 10% of the article, that is because of the many sources in it, but the amount of text is not that big. Most objectionable I find the attempt by two editors with a well-know POV to censor this article and remove from it what is easily seen as less favorable information about this politician. Although I could agree with the short version proposed by Transporterman, by way of compromise, I do not think it is correct to see this as recentism, and I see no reason at all to shorten the paragraph. I think it is well-written as it stands (or doesn't stand, as a matter of fact). I would add the paragraph to the text presently in the Mahmoud_Abbas#Published_works_and_statements_about_the_Holocaust section, rename that section to "Controversies", and make two subsections. A "Controversies" section is accepted practice in many articles about people, living as well as deceased. Debresser (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I see no misleading statements in my post above, but I do understand Nableezy position, that either both POV-related comments should be scrapped or neither. On the other hand, I made a factual statement, while Nableezy expressed his resentment. I think Nableezy should change his post a bit, try to be more factual, and then both can stay.
I'd like to add to that, that one can not view edits as detached from the editors who make them, and noting a POV is not just a comment on the editor, but sheds light on the edits of that editor as well. I would not see much point in this discussion if this issue were to be viewed, artificially and incorrectly, as unrelated to the POVs of the editors. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems like a waste of time, and I resent the repeated "POV editor" trope directed at me by Debresser.
As far as the issue, this is very obviously recentism. There has been no opportunity to see what impact this has had. There is a flurry of news articles about a current event, a speech given by a politician. "The many sources" are a collection of news articles covering news. Surprise surprise, news articles cover the news. But the idea that because 12 papers repeat a Reuters report, or 5 op-eds are written about a speech, that this means 10% of an article on a politician with a 60 some odd year career gets devoted to one speech is asinine. If this ends up being more than a footnote of his life then fine expand it. As it stands now I still think this shouldnt even be mentioned, but the line agreed to on the talk page is as far as I think any reasonable person could ask for or accept. nableezy - 17:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am not willing to continue to participate in this if Debresser's misleading statements and accusations of POV editing are allowed to stand and my one response to that collapsed. If my complaint at being called a POV editor is collapsed as a comment on a contributor but the actual repeated calling me a POV editor is not that does not exactly reflect well on the idea of an impartial dispute resolution process. nableezy - 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
Would the other two editors please present a concise summary of the issues within 24 hours? (If there is no reply within 24 hours (72 hours after opening the case), I will have to close the case for lack of response.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Third statement by moderator
I am restarting this entire discussion. Once again, the parties are reminded to comment only on content, not on contributors. That rule is absolute. Any comment on contributors will be hidden, without exception. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Now, will each party again state what their position is with respect to discussion of the speech by Abbas? There are three options that I see. First, include the content that was previously included and was then deleted as recentism. Second, exclude the content about the speech, as is currently the state of the article. Third, compromise by providing reduced coverage of the speech. Will each editor please comment, in no more than two paragraphs per editor, on what their opinion is of each of those three positions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
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.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.