Closed due to inadequate participation by one of the editors. I have already more than once reminded the editors that they should reply to my questions at least every 48 hours. I do not plan to wait more than 48 hours again, and do not see the value to dragging a dispute on for an editor who doesn't discuss in a timely manner. User:Sapedder may edit the article in accordance with what has been discussed here. If they are reverted, they may submit a Request for Comments, or may request my assistance in preparing a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. (A resumption of the content dispute is not disruptive editing, but can be dealt with by RFC.) If there are any further questions, they can be asked at the talk page for this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2022 (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 main issue is that User:Srijanx22 is repeatedly and deliberately adding content that directly contradicts several sources in the long-standing stable version, specifically that the subject was a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement, when several reliable sources in the lead alone clearly state otherwise. This has been brought to their attention repeatedly in the talk page, but there is a fixed refusal to acknowledge the matter, much less balance the two views per NPOV.
Their main tactic of doing so is obfuscating with a secondary matter, that anyone who reverts the edit is doing so to suppress the word "militant," which besides being bad-faith conspiratorialism, the word "militant/leader of militancy" is already included twice in the lead, so this obfuscation is a non-sequitur. There is also the matter that this statement "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" is incoherent because the Damdami Taksal is a non-militant, historical Sikh educational cultural institution (in a nutshell for the uninitiated), so this statement risks mischaracterizing that institution. This has also been explained by multiple users, but to no avail. Their main reason for this is their shoehorning the word "militant" is that it simply "needs to belong in the first sentence," and any attempt to correct this is again a conspiracy. Again, this secondary tactic has been in the service of completely avoiding any discussion that the main issue of the subject being a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement is highly and reliably disputed.
In addition, the edit adds a few redundancies to the lead, and screws it up from a compositional perspective, which also seems inconsequential to the user.
The full attempt at a discussion is available on the talk page under *Lead*, if it is not too crazy-making.
This noticeboard was also recommended earlier by a couple of admins at AN/EW: RegentsParkC.Fred
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Restoring neutral wording to the beginning of the page lead, giving both sides equal representation as the long-standing version had, not unilaterally declaring one viewpoint by ignoring the other. It has been explained to this user repeatedly that their edits are directly contradicted by several reliable sources in the lead alone, and requires balance, but to no avail. Possibly having neutral editors help formulate this, maybe based on the pre-dispute version if it is found suitable.
Summary of dispute by Srijanx22
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The main argument is entirely about the word "militant" on the first sentence which is perfectly valid per WP:LABEL and is backed by multiple reliable sources. I don't think participation by other editors is necessary because this is a pretty simple dispute and has been mostly between me and the OP. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note There have been more than 2 people involved in this discussion. All involved must be invited to participate here. Please tag them above and place a notice on all of their pages. To other volunteers- there has been significant discussion on the talk page over a prolonged period of time. It has been borderline personal- but not ANI level as of yet. Appears to be good candidate once all are tagged to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Nightenbelle, what would be the threshold for inclusion here? Chomskywala (who initiated the discussion) and perhaps Elephanthunter were the only ones to contribute meaningfully in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation imo, beyond random unelaborated yeses and noes. Currently both seem sporadically active, but I can certainly message them. Sapedder (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Invite anyone who has contributed to the discussion- but they do not all have to participate for this to continue. But they should be offered the opportunity. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
To moderators and observers, just a suggestion, maybe for later: in order to keep things focused and avoid muddying the waters, perhaps we can discuss each clause in isolation, as these are two distinct assertions anyway. The first being a) the primary issue, "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]," a cursory tertiary claim directly contradicted by several in-depth, reliable secondary sources; and then any issues with b) "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" and the flaws and redundancies that this introduces which have been explained ad nauseum. This may facilitate things imo. Sapedder (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator on JSB
I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. First, please read the usual mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts do not clarify the disagreement. Overly long posts may be collapsed, and the poster may be asked to summarize. Uncivil posts will be collapsed. I do not claim to be an expert on the modern history of South Asia, but I will expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space provided for the purpose. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as representative of the community.
There are two principal parties to this discussion. If any other editors join, they are welcome to participate. Every editor is expected to read this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and reply at least every 48 hours. If you will need a break from the discussion, you may ask to have the discussion put on hold. Otherwise you are expected to respond.
The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editors wants changed. (I think I know, but I am asking anyway.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors on JSB
Frankly, what I would want doesn't differ much from the long-standing version of the lead some weeks ago. The end of the lead was specifically designated for the two widely divergent narratives on the subject, but wasn't too strident either way in terms of proclaiming what he was or wasn't, or wanted or didn't want; it simply states the difference in opinions, presents the sources, and respects the reader enough to let them make up their own mind. From a compositional perspective, one starts with staid, objective facts, then progressively builds upon them, not with such sweeping proclamations which so easily invite contradiction and instability. Any additional sources could be added there in the ending para, which then leads to further detail in the main body. That would be the only real change I would put forth from the long-standing version, that the sources simply be added to the respective viewpoints already equally represented in the closing of the lead (though at the risk of WP:OVERKILL, as there are a number of sources already which essentially say the same thing). Sapedder (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. This means that we need to be clear about what words in the article are in dispute. Read Be Specific at DRN. One of you has been specific, and one has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Based on the specific reply, it appears that the issue is whether to identify the subject, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, as a "militant". We have to identify him in a way that he has been described by reliable sources that is consistent with the neutral point of view. It would appear that his supporters would have identified him as a "freedom fighter" and his enemies would have identified him as a "terrorist", and neither of those would be consistent with neutral point of view. If there is objection to calling him a "militant", please specify what you think the article should say, and why.
The main issue is that there is a unilateral attempt to refer to the subject as "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]", when clearly this is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources already present, brought to attention, and repeatedly ignored (something to note is that the sources stating this are mostly aged tertiary sources, which tend to recycle the same few lines of uncritical hearsay anyway). This absolutely does not belong in the opening, as it is reliably disputed by arguably better sources, so I do think I'm being a bit magnanimous by simply requiring NPOV and balance. Again, I would say there are two sub-debates here as to the wording.
And as anyone who has read the talk discussions will have noted over and over, the problem is that the phrase "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant organization, which it is not. The problem has never been the word "militant" per se, it already exists twice in the lead as "militant cadre/leader of militancy," as can be seen in the long-standing version I would point to as to what the article should say (the dispute has been limited to the first paragraph of the lead, but the rest of the lead should also be taken into consideration). So yet another shoehorned inclusion, which disregards/mischaracterizes a historic institution, is careless and inaccurate. This has pointedly never been addressed, and it must be to get anywhere. Sapedder (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator on JSB
Read Be Specific at DRN. If an editor wants a change made to the wording of the article, they should state exactly what they want changed.
Sapedder states that there are two sub-debates as to wording. Please state exactly what sentences you want changed. If Srijanx22 wants any specific portions of the article changed, please state what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors on JSB
To be clear: Remove (a) "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]." Not NPOV, contradicted by several secondary sources right in the lead (some are shown here at the very end of the section in green talk quote blocks). These divergent viewpoints are already adequately described at the end of the lead.
Remove (b) "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." This wording wrongly makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant group, and this creates a redundancy in the paragraph ("Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" and "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal." Latter is more correct anyway).
To reiterate, remove "...was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6] He..." as per the pre-dispute wording, as statement (a) is not NPOV and statement (b) mischaracterizes an institution with its flawed wording. The attached tertiary "citation" is not even properly formatted to boot. Sapedder (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
"militant leader" should be retained. It is supported by many reliable sources.[6][7][8][9] The opening sentence needs to be clear that he was a "militant" just like Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on the opening sentence.
Sapedder has now stated what they want removed. Please indicate what you want added in its place. Please also explain why the wording should be changed. Srijanx22 is saying that the existing wording is all right, so they are asked whether they want any other changes made to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors on JSB
Why the wording should be changed:
"Leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]," should be removed because it is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources, which state that the subject never even endorsed the idea of a separate state, much less headed a supposed movement for it at the time, even openly rejecting it. Some of these are reproduced below:
Sources
"At some stage, Bhindranwale had taken it upon himself to get the 1973 Anandpur Sahib Resolution passed. Incidentally, Bhindranwale had never asked for a separate Sikh state, but was fighting for the implementation of the 1973 resolution.... Bhindranwale, in fact, had always opined that he never asked for Khalistan, but if it was offered, the Sikhs would not give up the offer as they did during partition in August 1947." — Singh, Khushwant (2017). Captain Amarinder Singh: The People's Maharaja: An Authorized Biography. Hay House. pp. 156–157.
"Mr. Bhindranwale himself said many times that he was not seeking an independent country for Sikhs, merely greater autonomy for Punjab within the Indian Union." — Stevens, William K. (June 19, 1984). "Punjab Raid: Unanswered Questions". The New York Times. The New York Times Company.
"“He never demanded Khalistan.... All that Bhindranwale wanted was the implementation of the Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973. Operation Bluestar and Bhindranwale’s death was the main reason that the demand for Khalistan found currency, even among the hardliners,” added Harjit." — Chandel, Shamsher (9 May 2022). "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Never Asked For Khalistan, Claims Elder Brother Harjit Singh Rode". India Ahead. Noida, India. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
"“Bhindranwale never raised the demand for Khalistan or went beyond the Akali Anandpur Sahib Resolution, while he himself was prepared for negotiations to the very end.” added Harjit." — Dulat, A. S. (13 Dec 2020). "Genesis of tumultuous period in Punjab". www.tribuneindia.com. The Tribune Trust.
"Of course not," I said. "Look, if the Sikhs really want to create Khalistan and are prepared to die for it, I have little doubt they will succeed. But what do they really want? What do you want? Do you want Khalistan?"
"I have never asked for Khalistan," [Bhindranwale] said. — Puri, Rajinder (November 2, 2003). "Remembering 1984". Tribune India.
"The documentation of the reports sent to the central government before Operation Bluestar reads, “We ended this meeting in utmost cordiality and understanding and were happy at the outcome. In fact, I found there was nothing that would frighten the government of India, nor anyone else.”
Pannun claimed that Bhindranwale had repeatedly told him, “I don’t want Khalistan, but they would give it on a platter to me.” He said the sant was “grossly misunderstood,” and had he been treated with honesty and consideration, Operation BlueStar would have never taken place." — Walia, Varinder (29 August 2008). "Man who made efforts to avert Op Bluestar is no more". Tribune India.
"The assumption that Bhindranwale was insisting on Khalistan and rigidly denied any compromise is the biggest lie. What needs investigation is why Indira Gandhi despite having obtained an agreement with Bhindranwale that rendered Operation Bluestar redundant nevertheless launched the military action that led to her own death and to the tragic aftermath. What was her compulsion? Who was advising her?" — Puri, Rajinder (7 June 2014). "Biggest Lie about Bluestar!". The Statesman. Kolkata.
The current wording violates WP:NPOV ("Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.") and WP:BALANCE. It is an aging claim made by tertiary sources, which certainly do not trump secondary ones. Instead of insisting on one view or the other, both should be presented in a balanced, nuanced way (as they already are at the end of the lead).
The wording "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" should be removed because it falsely makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant/separatist/political group. It also creates careless redundancies in the paragraph: "Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" vs the more correct "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal," as well as the word "militant/militancy" itself, which are already in the lead.
What is requested in its place:
I am not requesting that anything new be added in place of the content to be removed, simply that the long-standing, pre-dispute neutral wording be restored: Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.Sapedder (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Sapedder seems to be thinking that the sentence "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is the same as saying "the person who was leading the Khalistan movement". Bhinderanwale is called a key figure of Khalistan movement because that is how he is treated by those of Khalistan movement. I have already provided enough sources just above here which support that Bhinderanwale was the key figure of this movement and why "militant" word should be retained. Here is another scholarly source which says "Within a few years Bhindranwale developed his own power base quite apart from the Congress ( I ) and began to emerge as the key figure in the Sikh separatist movement that was demanding a new independent state for Sikhs in the Punjab, an independent state to be known as "Khalistan" (the "Land of the Khalsa" or the "Land of the Pure"). He and his followers took control of the Sikh Golden Temple and the Akal Takht (the "Eternal Tower"), the central shrine and symbol of the Sikh faith, in Amritsar early in 1984, stockpiling huge caches of weapons and apparently preparing for armed insurrection." I only want the tag bombing done here to be reverted. Everything else seems fine on the article. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Fifth Statement by Moderator About JSB
The following is what I think the two editors want about the lede. I would like them to verify that I have restated correctly what they are asking.
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5]– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6][dubious – discuss][inconsistent] He was not an advocate of Khalistan.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[17][18] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10][19][20][21][22] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
I will note that we should minimize any use of terminology that will be viewed either as positively loaded or negatively loaded. I am not at this point commenting on what I see as the connotations of those wordings, but would like to verify that that is what the editors are saying. Each editor may also make an additional one-paragraph statement.
Srijanx22 also says that they want the tag-bombing reverted. I see one tag on the article, which is a neutrality tag. The neutrality tag will be removed when this dispute is resolved. If there any other tagging issues, please state very briefly what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
In regards to terminology, yes, this is exactly what I have asked for: as clear, unsensationalized and NPOV as possible. Anything else just invites perpetual conflict and page instability. Something I want to reiterate is that my version is the long-standing stable version, and hence should be treated as the default. The changed version is the current incoherent mess:
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5]– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6][dubious – discuss][inconsistent] He was not an advocate of Khalistan.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[17][18] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10][19][20][21][22] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
The phrases in bold italics completely contradict each other, hence tags.
The phrases in bold are redundancies. This is on top of the mischaracterization of the Damdami Taksal as a political/militant group of the first instance (and the redundancy of that word throughout the lead), which has been highlighted ad nauseum.
The fourth statement trying to defend this is also incoherent. Apparently, being a "leading figure of a movement" doesn't mean exactly that, it now means that he has posthumously come to symbolize a movement to its followers, or something (even though he never espoused it). But instead of writing anything like that (the end of the lead already covers that anyway), this specific wording and placement is rigidly insisted upon. This is just semantic plausible deniability.
To mangle the lead so badly, introduce so many faults in composition, let alone neutrality, and consider it just fine, is just a complete lack of regard for improving the content or writing quality of the page, as long as some loaded buzzwords are jammed into the first sentence at any cost. All obvious POV like this must be purged per the long-standing version. Sapedder (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sixth Statement by Moderator About JSB
I agree with Srijanx22Sapedder that the current version of the lede is arguing with itself. Srijanx22Sapedder has proposed to revert to the previous version of the lede. Does anyone else have an alternate proposal that respects neutral point of view and is free of internal contradictions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sixth Statements by Editors About JSB
Slight mixup here, I was the one that proposed reverting to the previous version and brought up the POV+contradictions, just to clarify. Yes, the previous version is coherent and satisfies NPOV. Sapedder (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you stop throwing your limited understanding of the content here? You should avoid this especially when my message was particularly meant for Robert McClenon and he can speak for himself. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Seventh Statements by Editors About JSB
I would like Robert McClenon to explain how the lead is "arguing with itself". The two statements that JSB was a militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement are entirely valid. I would be superfine if the lead is simply: "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an Indian militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement." Srijanx22 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It's rather obvious that it's arguing with itself, to anyone engaging in good faith. So is this doubling down on obvious POV that is their seventh statement. I'd be "superfine" with the opposite POV statement. Obviously that would also create a neutrality problem, so all POV must go.
As to a brief statement, I would simply say that it it imperative that the lead is as restrained and unsensational with wording as possible, in either direction. The article before this had been relatively stable for the last year and a half or so, partly due to its careful wording that does not proclaim any POV as undisputed, thus not inviting constant counter-edits and conflict. The page's long-term history reflects this need; it is partly due to the long-standing lead (which was fashioned after months of collaboration) that it was possible for the page to finally be as stable for as long as it was, prior to this dispute.
I also note that there was no response here from the other party for over 72 hours, despite being active during that time, and being aware of replying within 48 hours. They have not offered any involved reasonings or reasonable alternatives, beyond essentially repeating over and over "it's sourced" (as the opposite is) or "I want it" (which is irrelevant). Sapedder (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment I was involved in reverting on this article as well as discussion on talk page and I am surprised that I was not notified but 2 others with no contribution into this particular dispute for more than 1 month were. My view is that while Sapedder wants to preserve a JSB follower's POV on lead, the version to which Srijanx22 and several other editors have reverted to is clearly more encyclopedic. If there should be any significant change then it must go through RfC and if Sapedder wants to bludgeon and falsely accuse others of POV without any evidence then he should be reported for his misconduct because this WP:IDHT on Sapedder's part is apparently incredible. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Eighth Statement by Moderator on JSB
Does User:Accesscrawl want to take part in the discussion here, or do they think that progress can be made at the article talk page if I put this moderated discussion on hold? If they wish to take part in the discussion here, I will ask them to read the ground rules, and to comment on article content, not contributors. This is an article content forum. Conduct is not discussed here; often the resolution of content issues causes any conduct issues to subside. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The lede says that JSB was the leading figure of the Khalistan movement. It then says that he was not an advocate of Khalistan. That looks to me as if it is arguing with itself.
Assuming that we will continuing discussion here with an additional editor, I will ask each editor to state exactly what they want changed in the lede section (or what they want left the same). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Eighth Statements by Editors on JSB
"He was not an advocate of Khalistan" was added by Sapedder here together with tag bombing. I have already asked to revert that edit. I would be fine with a lead that simply state the facts. I am making two proposals as follow:
Proposal 1 - it is the same as before the tagging I mentioned
^ abDhillon 1996, p. 160. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDhillon1996 (help)
^ abSingh 2017, p. 156: "At some stage, Bhindranwale had taken it upon himself to get the 1973 Anandpur Sahib Resolution passed. Incidentally, Bhindranwale had never asked for a separate Sikh state, but was fighting for the implementation of the 1973 resolution...."
^ abCite error: The named reference dulat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference stevens was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Larson, G.J. (1995). India's Agony Over Religion: Confronting Diversity in Teacher Education. SUNY Series in Religious Studies. State University of New York Press. p. 230. ISBN978-0-7914-2412-4. Within a few years Bhindranwale developed his own power base quite apart from the Congress ( I ) and began to emerge as the key figure in the Sikh separatist movement that was demanding a new independent state for Sikhs in the Punjab, an independent state to be known as "Khalistan" (the "Land of the Khalsa" or the "Land of the Pure"). He and his followers took control of the Sikh Golden Temple and the Akal Takht (the "Eternal Tower"), the central shrine and symbol of the Sikh faith, in Amritsar early in 1984, stockpiling huge caches of weapons and apparently preparing for armed insurrection.
As from the very beginning, as in the talk discussion, first statement, and fifth statement, I have been asking for the neutral long-term lead to be restored:
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
The talk page discussion has long since been at a gridlock, and imo Accesscrawl did not make meaningful contribution there "in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation" as I had explained earlier, beyond simply "I want that" in terms of defending POV, which has also been the "contribution" here so far. If every one-sentence unelaborated yes/no there is added, it is not equitable to those who had been deeply participating at length there.
In my version, there is no room for any POV. As explained in the edit summary, "not an advocate of Khalistan" is a stopgap measure meant to both balance the skewed claims on the article pending resolution, and b) show the hypocrisy with POV:
These "proposals" are completely unworkable, and fully reveal the problem: They want a heavily sourced statement ("not an advocate") they don't like deleted without explanation, while their own POV ("leading figure" which is arguably less credible due to only using tertiary sources with the same recycled statements) is insisted upon. Again, only the long-standing lead I have always proposed is actually free of all POV. Anything else is simply seeking to strategically place POV buzzwords, as opposed to improving the encyclopedia with a nuanced take. Sapedder (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I am in support of the lead proposed by Srijanx22, especially the "Proposal 1". I don't find Sapedder's lead to be meeting WP:LEAD because this type of description is not supported by scholarly sources. They introduce Bhindranwale as a militant/terrorist and a major figure of Khalistan movement than any "jathedar" of "Damdami Taksal" which is far from being a "prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution". Accesscrawl (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Are there any other parts of the article that are in dispute besides the wording of the lede?
Ninth statements by editors on JSB
No, just the beginning of the lede is in dispute.
The crux of the matter: "leading figure," "key figure" etc. these are just trivial semantic substitutions meant to continue to insist singularly on involvement in the "Khalistan movement;" that is clearly what it reads, and is meant to read. The less nuance there is, the better it is to suit this purpose. Reliable sources, some of which were mentioned earlier, clearly state the opposite, that he not only never asked for it, let alone "lead" it, but denied it, so nothing like this can be stated sweepingly, point blank, per WP:BALANCE. This is along with the general unencyclopedic language being added, and need for a restrained, professional style, mentioned earlier. POV of course only invites more POV and thus conflict, there should be no such categorical assertions that are so easily contradicted.
"Not an advocate" was placed with all the sources attached to render those sources no longer avoidable or ignored; if there was any "IDHT" going on, it was constantly ignoring these sources in talk to assert involvement in the Khalistan movement. The fact is that he never even asked for it, with reliable sources better than tertiary ones at that. The two statements are contradictory and thus linked; there is no removing "not an advocate" without also removing "leading figure," hence my proposal, the balanced, long-standing lead. "Leading figure" or any slight variation thereof, cannot stand.
This noticeboard has already been fruitful in that an impartial, ideologically neutral moderating editor (the presence of whom was/is necessary) quickly saw the issue of contradiction that others may be simply refusing to. Sapedder (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Tenth Statement by Moderator on JSB
It appears that the two versions of the lede acceptable to Srijanx22 both refer to JSB as a militant. It appears that the version that is acceptable to Sapedder does not refer to JSB as a militant. Is that correct? Is it the use of the word 'militant' that the parties cannot agree on? Is that correct? Are there any other points of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Tenth Statements by Editors on JSB
The chief disagreement would be linking him to the Khalistan movement in the first sentence, clearly trying to categorically declare active leadership/participation/"figure" in this movement, when it is reliably cited with superior secondary sources that he never even asked for it, much less participated in such a movement, which was arguably not even really a ground reality until after his death. No categorical declarations towards one side or the other, that violates NPOV, no matter how "right" it feels. Can't be declared to be a figure of a movement he was not a part of, which is reliably sourced, really that simple. For both this and for "militant," it certainly requires more nuance than can be fit in one deliberately placed, lazy hitjob of a sentence. Sapedder (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I have already proposed 2 versions of the lead. Either should stay. To say that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale "can't be declared to be a figure of a movement he was not a part of" is misleading because he does not have to be a part of the movement to become its figure. Syama Prasad Mukherjee for a name, died 27 years before Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) was born, but BJP considers him to be the founder of its party. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is a central figure in Khalistan movement. It is not for Wikipedia to indulge in No True Scotsman fallacy. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Eleventh Statement by Moderator on JSB
It appears that there are at least two issues about the lede of the article. The first is whether JSB should be referred to as a "militant". Srijanx22 agrees with this characterization; Sapedder disagrees with the characterization.
The second issue is that Sapedder appears to object to identifying JSB as a leader of the Khalistan movement, and Srijanx22 says that he should continue to be so identified.
Are these the two article content issues? If so, the moderator has two more questions. Robert McClenon (talk)
The first follow-up question is for Sapedder. If JSB should not be characterized as a leader of the Khalistan movement, how should he be identified?
The second follow-up question is for both editors. Is a compromise possible, to identify JSB as a leader of the Khalistan movement, without using the label "militant"? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement 11.1 by Moderator on JSB
It appears that User:Sapedder and User:Srijanx22 have not edited in the past 48 hours. The rules said that each editor should check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours. I will keep this case open for at least 24 hours, but not more than 72 hours. If I close it due to lack of response, the parties will be expected to resolve their issues either by discussion or by RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement 11.2 by Moderator on JSB
It appears that User:Srijanx22 has not edited in the past four days. The rules said that each editor should check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours. If they do not respond within about 24 hours, I will close this case, with a recommendation that Sapedder may edit the article as they have discussed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Eleventh Statements by Editors on JSB
Excuse the delay.
It is not that I don't necessarily want the subject referred to as a militant, it is that the lead already does, multiple times and at suitable junctures, so it is redundant and deliberately leaves no room for discussion in the first sentence, hence why I want it gone from there. What I do want removed entirely from the lead is this phrase "leading figure of Khalistan movement" or any equallyweaselly variants thereof, which clearly seeks to deliberately imply active leadership and support for Khalistan, while hiding behind plausible deniability. What is a clear statement is that he did not support Khalistan; as that is clearly citable, this phrase has no place here. As recognized, they contradict and are mutually exclusive.
Regarding the tenth statement response, this is just the latest equivalency that betrays a feeble understanding of the subject. JSB did not lead or create the movement which predated his public life, or any forerunner movement to it, he did nothing to actively advance it. This "Mukherjee" did not ever disavow the subsequent BJP or its ideology, like JSB disavowed Khalistan. Invoking "no true Scotsman" makes no sense here either. We have multiple sources clearly stating that he wasn't a Scotsman at all, so to speak, no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.
Regarding the first follow-up question, what the subject should be referred to is the leader of a historic institution, Damdami Taksal, per the longstanding lead, which is a good base upon which to build further information. This is what he was during the whole time he was in public eye, and is completely free of any subjective labels, positive or negative. On the other hand, the only armed action the subject took was at the very end of his life. So it is clear which descriptor sets a better base for the article, in terms of both information and tone.
Regarding the second follow-up question, there is more chance of a compromise involving the converse being possible. The phrase "figure of Khalistan movement" needs to go, that I am firm on. I can then make a proposal with what is left. There two given "proposals" so far are not proposals, they are simply superficial rewordings with no meaningful change in content. Sapedder (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I still find explanations by Sapedder to be unconvincing. JSB has been frequently called a "terrorist" by reliable sources thus "militant" label is perfectly valid. "figure of Khalistan movement" is also valid because sources do not claim that JSB was not an influential figure of Khalistan movement. I have already provided sources which treat support it.[13] Now see Operation Blue Star, where JSB was a prominent militant, is also unanimously treated as part of Khalistan movement by reliable sources,[14][15][16] and they also note that "after his death in the Operation Blue Star, Jarnail Singh Bindranwale was honoured as the first martyr of Khalistan".[17] Furthermore, it does not matter what "JSB disavowed" even if he did. David Duke also claims that he is not a white supremacist,[18] but it doesn't mean we will remove that from the lead of David Duke. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Twelfth Statement by Moderator on JSB
Do the two editors want to continue moderated discussion? If so, I expect them to reply to my comments at least every 48 hours, without being prompted. If not, I will close this dispute inconclusively. If either party wants to continue moderated discussion, they will have to reply to my questions at least every 48 hours, so that an RFC can be properly formulated. If neither editor wants to continue discussion, I will remind them that edit-warring is not permitted, and that Bold, Revert, Discuss is the rule.
I will remind the editors to Be Specific at DRN. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article.
I realize that this may seem repetitious, but I am asking each editor to present one proposal for a rewording of the lede paragraph (or a statement to leave it alone). Then we will at least be ready for an RFC if no one wants to continue discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Twelfth Statements by Editors on JSB
Yes, I'd like to continue. Oversight is absolutely necessary. Let me reproduce WP:BALANCE:
Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
I've lost count as to how many times I've pointed to it now, or the staunch refusals to acknowledge it. Relevant parties seem to believe that just by stacking (still tertiary) sources, they can override it and thus not have to deal with opposing viewpoints. That only yields WP:OVERKILL. The several reliable secondary sources clearly stating that the subject was uninvolved in the movement will have to be reckoned with and accounted for, without making any sweeping proclamations, or pointing to the most ludicrous, nonapplicable examples to engage in derailing whataboutery. It has been recognized that the lead contradicts itself, in any case, so that is inescapable, no matter how much one insists on their own POV. "Militant" is already in the lead multiple times, no one has tried to rid the article of those instances, so it would be good if this is also recognized by comment, so this distraction also ceases.
My proposal remains as the long-standing neutral lead:
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
As I've said, the rest may be negotiable, but a "figure of Khalistan movement" is not, any discussion of which is already covered by the end of the lead already in a way that satisfies BALANCE. Sapedder (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Notes: what may help give the process some momentum would be as a moderator to clearly state WP:BALANCE as a central goal of the lead, which would obligate everyone to abide by it and pursue neutrality, and bar anyone from trying to insist on any specific POV, or distract from how sources contradict. We should also keep statement 11.2 in effect, any user who fails to comment within the allotted window should be considered to have forfeited by default (this has happened on the other side a few times before already, with no penalty), with the active user earning the right to instate content as they see fit. Sapedder (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I fully disagree with the proposed lead above. None of the sources I mentioned talks about JSB a being the 14th "jathedar". It shouldn't be on first sentence since Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV.
Proposal 1
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[1] 2 June 1947[2]– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[3]
He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[4][5] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
Proposal 2
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[1] 2 June 1947[2]– 6 June 1984) was an Indian militant[14][15][16][17] and a key figure of Khalistan movement.[18][19][20]
He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[21][5] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[6][7][8][9][22][23][24][25] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.
"Present one statement for the rewording of the lede" means "Present one statement for the rewording of the lede".
It appears that the two editors disagree as to whether JSB should be associated with the Khalistan movement, or whether the Khalistan movement postdates the death of JSB. Is that a correct statement of the main difference? If so, I will be asking the editors each to prepare a one-paragraph statement that will accompany their proposal in an RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The main point of dispute is even more direct than that: it is reliably sourced that JSB was not a proponent of Khalistan, much less involved in any movement for such. Let us see this DRN through, as moderation is necessary. For now:
WP:NPOV means "neutral point of view" for those that seem to be confused: The long-standing lead referred to him as a specific leader of a specific institution, "leader of the Damdami Taksal," which he was for the entirety of his time he was in the public eye. It is free of any spin, redundancies, sensationalism, weasel words, or value judgments, hence it is neutral and fulfulls NPOV, and a good base to start the article with. It is not in dispute, and pushes no POV.
Meanwhile, trying to refer to him as a "figure of Khalistan movement [sic]" is disputed. When one is already well aware of secondary sources like these clearly stating that he was not a Khalistan supporter, but still clearly cherrypicks certain tertiary sources and ignores inconvenient secondary ones, then it is clear POV pushing, hence not neutral, hence not NPOV, whether stating it flatly or through deliberately placed weasel words. BALANCE: When two statements clash, neither can be proclaimed unconditionally, for the umpteenth time. This clash of views is already covered at the closing of the lead.
Robert McClenon, could you share your view directly on this? Regarding the process: The proposals have been laid out, now we can start weighing them against policy to see what passes muster and what does not. This need not require deep knowledge of the topic, simply enforcement of policy against contradictory statements. Evaluating each proposal is the way to create some convergence between them. As I said, besides inclusion of the clear "figure of Khalistan" POV, everything else is on the table. Sapedder (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion on JSB
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.
Aiwass
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
First, this board is only for discussions that have been going on for an extended period of time - this dispute is only 36 hours old- not ready for this page. Please return to the article talk page and engage other editors to find consensus. Being an expert on the subject is all well and good- but- as Skyerise has said repeatedly- edits must be properly sourced. You say you have sources- great. At this point you need to present the changes you want to make on the article talk page including the sources you want to use to cite everything you want to add. Also- if you are a subject expert and have a close connection- such as having written about the subject, or knowing the subject personally- you must specify your WP:COI before editing further. If you do not have a COI- fine, Just saying it since many subject matter experts do have a COI with their chosen subject. Engaging in discussion is the best way to find a compromise and solution that gets consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2022 (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 am fairly new at the editing but a well known expert in the field in question. I am trying to correct an article which reports demonstrably false information. Another editor has changed each and everyone of my edits and has refused to discuss the topic. I feel as they are utilizing their experience as an editor to simply overwrite me on procedure while refusing to actually discuss the topic - though I have provided the proper citations to support what I am saying. I assume that historical accuracy is something that matters to admin and trying to navigate myself through this process in order to assure this. I ask that someone please review the notes that have been posted and communicate with me as to if I am doing something wrong? If they can verify the facts as I am putting forth and can make sure the page properly reflects such.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Just hoping the easily provable facts win out here and I am willing to work via any committee and or other process to assure this.
Summary of dispute by Skyerise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Aiwass 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.
Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed for a number of reasons 1- filing editor has failed to list other party involved in dispute. 2- dispute has been going on less than 24 hours and consists of 4 posts- this is not an extended attempt to find a compromise. 3- filing editor needs to read what the other user has said to them. They are not saying you cannot use that image- they are saying you must use it in the correct manner- meaning you must add a copyright tag to the image or an automated bot will continue to remove it. see WP:NFCCP. Once you do that- the bot will stop edit warring with you and all will be well. Just a suggestion- before coming to the DRN- it might be worth it to be sure you are actually in a disagreement- in this case- you are not, you have just failed to read what the other editor wrote. Have a nice day :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2022 (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 graphic pre-approved for use on the Oregon State University wiki page is being wrongfully removed by an individual for an inaccurate reason. This individual claims they are removing the graphic because it has not been approved for use on additional Oregon State University wiki pages. The graphic has, indeed, been approved for use on wiki pages representing Oregon State University. The college wiki pages, just like the main Oregon State University wiki page, are all representative of the same institution. There is nothing new being applied here. The fair-use still applies just as other universities use pre-approved logo graphics on related university "college" wiki pages.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have asked to discuss this issue with the individual removing the graphic, but he is unwilling to discuss this further.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Help explain that wiki editors do not need to obtain a new fair-use license for a graphic when an approved graphic is used on additional pages that serve the originally authorized purpose - representing the same institution (individual colleges) on additional pages.
Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts 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.
Help:Wikitext
Latest comment: 2 years ago53 comments6 people in discussion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed as resolved. It has been established that the use of the <s> and <u> tags is incorrect for marking changes to talk page dialog. These tags have sometimes been used, but that does not make their use correct. If there are questions about what the talk page guidelines themselves should say, that can be a separate discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2022 (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.
Either explain to Thewolfchild that Help pages cannot override guidelines, or explain to me that they can, and that this is the case here.
Summary of dispute by Thewolfchild
I believe the all-too-brief "discussion" speaks for itself. The filer, Paradoctor, arbitrarily removed all mention of the tags, and in their summary they stated it was "per a discussion", giving the false impression that there was a consensus for removal. The "discussion" is 3 years old and there was only a single response. In the "ensuing discussion", Paradoctor refused to collaborate, would not consider solutions or even acknowledge the issue. Only after they refused to respond for weeks at a time, did I revert back to QUO.
I'm also interested to see if RedRose agrees with the bit about "...nor Redrose64 are getting through to him.", for it seems they have that part backwards. In fact, I find basically most, if not all, of Paradoctor's comments to be disingenuous.
Lastly, this "Either explain to Thewolfchild that Help pages cannot override guidelines, or..." (etc.) is new, if not some kind of derail. This was not brought up before. Afaic, this has nothing to do with "help pages overriding guidelines", this is simply about the sudden removal of information about tags currently in use, and the refusal to justify said removal or consider updating the information instead. In fact they refused to collaboratively engage on the issue entirely.
Summary of dispute by Redrose64
My involvement in this dispute has solely been pointing out the distinction between the <s>...</s>/<u>...</u> elements on the one hand, and the <del>...</del>/<ins>...</ins> on the other (this edit, whilst it involved the disputed content, did not affect its meaning, just the semantics of the underlying markup). Whilst the visual appearance (to a sighted reader using most major browsers) differs little - if at all - there is a great deal of difference in the semantic meaning, which can affect how some user agents handle content enclosed in such markup. If this is still not clear, try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. On those grounds, I support the spirit of this edit (if not its actual implementation), and agree with the edit summary there.
On a more technical level, the <s>...</s>/<u>...</u> elements are inline elements, and so cannot be used to enclose block elements such as lists; the <del>...</del>/<ins>...</ins> elements are specifically designed to allow the enclosure of block elements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:LISTGAP: blank lines between list items create extra lists. The text is exactly the same, but I altered it to be one coherent list instead of four separate lists, of which two were doubly malformed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Help:Wikitext discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The thing is, they're not deprecated, and I don't think that is point of this discussion. They are actively used tags, more so than the others. There should be some guidance, somewhere regarding these tags, even if just to suggest that the other tags are preferred, and a reason why that is. - wolf13:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Do the editors agree to moderated discussion? If so, I will moderate. The editors should not engage in back-and-forth discussion, which has already been tried and has not been successful. Answer my questions, and address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Please read the ground rules. You are expected to comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is continuing in. progress. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article (the help file on wiki-text); other matters are not relevant.
To answer a question, the Help text must be consistent with the guideline. Nothing in the Help may contradict the guideline. However, I think that question does not resolve the dispute; further discussion is required.
I am not familiar with the use of the <s> and <u> tags, but I see that the <del> and <ins> tags are normally recommended in their place. Either the Help file should make that recommendation, or it should clearly explain when the use of the <s> and <u> tags is in order.
I am asking each party to state, in one paragraph, what change they want to make to the Help file, or what change they want to prevent in the Help file. They may also provide one more paragraph stating why they want to make that change. I can see that at least two more rounds of my questions and your answers may be necessary to resolve this dispute. Again, be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors on Wikitext
I agree to moderated discussion, that is what I came here for.
Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors.
It appears that at least one of the specific issues is the deletion and then restoration of a section recommending the use of the <s> and <u> tags in preference to the <del> and <ins> tags. Do the editors agree or disagree?
It also appears that the talk page guideline, in the section with a shortcut of WP:REDACT, states that the <del> and <ins> tags should be used. Do the editors agree or disagree?
Does either editor want to provide an explanation of what they think are the differences between the <s> and <u> tags, and the <del> and <ins> tags ?
Thewolfchild's first edit did not make it a preference, but an alternative. His second edit reverted to the original wording, for which my answer is "agree".
Agree.
For purpose of marking up deleted and inserted material, <s>...</s> and <u>...</u> produce invalid HTML. They are simply the wrong tags for the job. For details, I refer you to Redrose64's expertise.
The removal and re-additon of content to provide guidance regarding the s and u tags at H:WT is the core issue. (I don't see the current edit as indicating a "preference" for the s and u tags over the others though.)
Yes, a problem with TPG ia there is no mention of the s and u tags at all, even if just to explain that the other tags are preferred, and why. Had we been able to work out new guigance at H:WT, my intent was to copy that over to TPG as well.
Apparently there are html issues with the s and u tags... but how would anyone know? There is no information about them. I do know that they are widely used, (probably more so than the ins and del tags, and as RedRose64 stated: "The s and u tags are not deprecated (or obselete)", so we can't pretend they don't exist.
The talk page guideline is not within the scope of this DRN discussion. The Help page should be consistent with the guideline. Some of my questions may be repetitious. I think that either I have missed something that needs to be explained to me, or someone has missed something. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
This may seem like a stupid question. Is the purpose of the Help file to facilitate the writing of Wikitext, or do facilitate the reading of existing Wikitext?
Do the editors agree that the talk page guidelines state that the <del> and <ins> tags should be used?
Again, does any editor want to provide an explanation of what they think are the differences between the <s> and <u> tags, and the <del> and <ins> tags ?
Is there a specific technical or policy-based situation in which the <s> and <u> tags should be preferentially used?
Writing. A user will generally not profit from reading wikitext.Misread the question. Both. Can't edit what one can't read. 01:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes.
The definitions in Help:HTML in wikitext may be helpful here. Too bad I didn't find this earlier.
Peehaps another stupid question; but if you're referring to the H:WT page, does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both? And if by "facilitate" you mean "help", then... yes, I believe the wikitext help page helps facilitate both the reading and writing of wikitext. (ymmv)
You say the "TPG is outside the scope here", yet you keep bringing it up, so forgive me if I include the TPG in my answer(s). The ins and del tags are mentioned in the TPG, but when you ask if the TPG state "they should be used", do you mean as opposed to the s and u tags? No one can agree with that because the s and u tags aren't mentioned. (In keeping with the spirit of the rules here, I'm not adding anything regarding the tags to the TPG until this is complete.)
And yes, I also wish I'd seen H:HTML earlier. Turns out the u tag is not listed under "Obsolete/deprecated", but listed under "formatting", same as the ins tag, with no apparent prefernce for one over the other. And where the 'strike' tag is listed under "Obsolete", the guidance there is to use the s tag instead. (Thanks for that.)
Again, my understanding is that they appear to perform the same function visually, but there is apparently some underlying issue with the s and u tags, but not with the ins and del tags. Perhaps with Redrose64 being a party here, he can clarify this issue?
No policy that I'm currently aware of. (And where is "preferentially" written?) I just know that since the s and u tags are widely used, apparently much more so than the others, there should be some kind of guidance regarding them (even if that guidance is to state that the ins and del tags should be used instead, with a reason why). - wolf01:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Applicable Information Provided by Redrose64 (Copied from talk page)
Anyway, I'm being asked to clarify something that I thought that I had already clarified. I shall quote from the W3C's HTML 5.2 specifications for the four tags concerned:
4.5.5. The s element: represents contents that are no longer accurate or no longer relevant. The s element is not appropriate when indicating document edits; to mark a span of text as having been removed from a document, use the del element.
4.5.24. The u element: represents a span of text with an unarticulated, though explicitly rendered, non-textual annotation, such as labeling the text as being a proper name in Chinese text (a Chinese proper name mark), or labeling the text as being misspelt. In most cases, another element is likely to be more appropriate: for marking stress emphasis, the em element should be used; for marking key words or phrases either the b element or the mark element should be used, depending on the context; for marking book titles, the cite element should be used; for labeling text with explicit textual annotations, the ruby element should be used; for technical terms, taxonomic designation, transliteration, a thought, or for labeling ship names in Western texts, the i element should be used.
I keep mentioning the talk page guidelines although they are not in the scope of this discussion because they are the applicable policy and guidelines. If I am mediating an article content dispute, I may quote the neutral point of view policy, which is not within the scope of the discussion, because it is the policy. If an editor wants to change the guideline, they may withdraw from this dispute resolution and go to the talk page guideline talk page.
It is my understanding that the (s) and (u) tags are not deprecated, but they are incorrect for marking up changes to talk pages. They happen to work in the same way as the (del) and (ins) tags for most visual web page browsers, but that does not mean that their use should be recommended, or even that their use should be mentioned as an alternative. The use of the (s) and (u) tags as an alternative to the (del) and (ins) tags should be discouraged as being phased out.
Any statement that a non-preferred style of tags, that is, (s) and (u), are used more often than the preferred style of tags should either be accompanied by statistics supported by a query, or can be ignored.
The next set of questions are:
Does any editor want to close this dispute in order to discuss a change to the talk page guidelines?
Does any editor disagree that the (del) and (ins) tags are and should be indicated as the proper way to mark up changes to talk page discussion? If so, why?
Does any editor want to provide statistics on the use of the (s) and (u) tags?
If any editor wants to propose a rewording of the Wikitext help file that mentions the (s) and (u) tags without implying that they are permitted, they may provide the text.
The material that Redrose64 has provided looks clear to me, which is that the (s) and (u) are intended for other purposes than indicating deletion or insertion. They are permitted for other purposes. Just because they are used to indicate deletion and insertion does not mean that they should be used to indicate deletion and insertion. (If someone disagrees, they may explain how they disagree.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
No. The present discussion is about conformance of the Help page with the relevant guideline. Thewolfchild has not given valid arguments for deviating from it, so the only way to close this mediation successfully is for him to answer "yes" to question 3.2. If he wishes to change TPG, he can do that there, neither the Help page nor here are the right venue for that.
Note: sorry, didn't realize I had missed a deadline. (Its my 1st drn)
I am not looking to discuss changes to the TPG if that means this DRN must be closed. TPG changes are needed, but that can be addressed later.
I don't disagree that ins and del tags should be noted as the preferred tags to use, but there should at a minimum be some kind of notation of what they are preferred to (eg: the s and u tags). And the reason why s and u tags shouldn't be used should be included.
I wouldn't know how to go about that. If that could be provided, I believe it would be very useful. I do know that at this point that the current info on the H:WT page states that the "s and u tags ... are considerably more popular than the del and ins tags on Wikipedia...". I don't know who added that, or when.
As far back as 2012 02 26, there was "For striking out material, the <s></s> markup is an alternative to <del></del>."
At the end of 2012, it stated "For striking out material, the <s></s> markup is a less semantic element than <del></del>." and "Alternative markup: [to del and ins] You can strike out deleted material and underline new material."
The point here being for at least 10½ years, there has been some kind guidance about the use of s and u tags. This is not new. We shouldn't just suddenly remove all mention of these tags. If the ins and del tags are preferred to the s and u tags, the Help page should at least mention that, and include some kind of reason for the change.
Yes, there should be some kind rewording, as opposed to complete removal. I had repeatedly suggested this during the initial discussion.
Perhaps some kind of notation, such as: "While not deprecated, it is preferred that <del></del> and <ins></ins> be used instead of <s></s> and <u></u>. There are accessibility issues with the <s></s> and <u></u> tags." - wolf08:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator on Wikitext
At this point, it appears that the case can be closed as resolved, that the Help page will not mention the (s) and (u) tags. One editor has not replied within 48 hours, and I require that participants in dispute resolution reply within 48 hours. If there is a reply within the next 24 hours, I will decide what to do next. Otherwise the case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors on Wikitext
Sixth statement by moderator on Wikitext
A suggestion has been made to mention the <s> and <u> tags. They should not be mentioned as alternatives to the <del> and <ins> tags. Saying that they are "not deprecated" is literally true but misleading. They are deprecated for the purpose of indicating deletion and insertion. The reason that the previous guidance was removed, after having been present for ten years, may have been simply that it was incorrect. Incorrect guidance should be removed, no matter how long it has been present.
So the next set of questions are:
Should there be any guidance in the Help file about the <s> and <u> tags?
If so, what should it say?
Why should there be guidance about these tags, or why not?
While I don't see a need, I won't oppose guidance that does not imply that <s>...</s> or <u>...</u> are permitted for the purpose of indicating document edits.
I don't really care about such superfluous details. As I've already said, as long there is something... it can be as clear-cut as you like that the s and u tags are no longer to be used, just include some kind of reason why they're no longer to be used, and I think we can wrap this up. - wolf22:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Are there condtions under which the you feel the mention of the s and u tags could be permitted in a new statement? Would using any parts of the comments posted by Redrose64 in this DRN in a new statement to explain why ins and del tags should now be used instead of the s and u tags, be permitted? - wolf15:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a technical limitation. The <s>...</s> and <u>...</u> elements are inline elements, that is, they may not enclose block elements and so may not be used to enclose whole paragraphs, lists, tables etc. By contrast, the <ins>...</ins> nad <del>...</del> elements may be used in either situation (they are, in fact, the only HTML elements which may both enclose block elements and be used inside inline elements). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator on Wikitext
Does either editor want to propose language for the Help Wikitext file concerning the <s> and <u> tags that is consistent with the fact that their use for deletion and insertion is incorrect? (That is, either to mention that they have been used incorrectly in the past, or to say that they have specialized uses?
I don't see what has changed. The text that I proposed is what I feel is best, that's why I wrote it in the first place. If Thewolfchild wants "something" else, it's on him to make a proposal. My only stake in this is compliance with the guideline. Paradoctor (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed that this version mentions only article usage, not redacting one's own talk comments, so we'll need to add a sentence right before the table to the tune of "The same applies to changing one's own talk page comments, per WP:REDACT." Paradoctor (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what PD means by "text that [they] proposed"... if that could be pointed out, I think that might be helpful.
Meanwhile, I proposed an example of a statement in the 4th statement - #4. That's not set in stone, I'm flexible on any statement that mentions: the s and u tags, what they were used for (along with the ins and del tags), that they're not to be used anymore, and why that is.
If either you (Robert), or the other editor (PD) wants to makes suggestions on specifics, I think that would be helpful and I'm sure something can be worked out.
On a side note; I've stated that while I think the TPG should be be addressed regarding these tags, I also stated that I would not do so while this DRN is active (You also brought this particular item up Robert, in your 4th statement). That said, I've noted that PD edited the TPG in regards to these tags less than 48 hours ago, and as they say, I just don't think that is cricket. I think the TPG, wrt to these specific tags, should not be edited by either editor here, until this DRN is completed. (imho) - wolf20:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator on Wikitext
Does either editor have any specific issue or question that they want resolved by moderated discussion?
Does either editor have any other questions or concerns?
I am stressing that I'm looking for plain "yes" or "no" as answers. All the arguments have been made, and I don't see anything significantly new forthcoming.
As I said, this is my first DRN. I'm not sure if this is how they're typically supposed to go, but this seems like it's been a huge waste of time.
On the H:WT talk page, PD made no effort to collaboate, no attempt to come to a solution, and wouldn't even provide any direct or reasonable responses to efforts to form a solution. That thread speaks for itself.
Despite that, it was PD who suddenly initiated this process, and despite all of this, I still participated here and tried to work towards a solution.
Robert, this is not meant as slight towards to you. I appreciate that you often put time and effort into this noticeboard to try and help resolve issues, and I'm sure you are often successful.
That said, I'm not sure there was ever a chance a coming to a resolution here when one editor refuses to co-operate and instead intentionally frustrates the process. What has PD done here to help work towards a solution? What contribution has been made? Misleading and disingenuous comments, rude demands, circular argumemts, straw-man fallacies and an overall extremely poor attitude. Enough is enough.
Thank you for the effort, Robert, you can jump to PD's "yes or no" demands if you like, but I'm done. It's clear that nothing can be accomplished here. - wolf00:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
You realize this has dragged on for a week now, right? I already made a suggestion. Do you have a suggestion? (It would hopefully help outline what what you'd be willing to accept in notation.) - wolf00:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
That suggestion is not acceptable because it implies that <s>...</s> and <u>...</u> are acceptable alternatives to <ins>...</ins> and <del>...</del>.
Let me quote from § Fourth statement by moderator on Wikitext (my emphasis): If any editor wants to propose a rewording of the Wikitext help file that mentions the (s) and (u) tags without implying that they are permitted, they may provide the text.
I'm under no kind of obligation to do your work. The guideline doesn't mention the tags, and I don't see why the Help page should. Maybe WP:SOLVE will be instructive here. Paradoctor (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Oy... no one said you were "obligated" to do anything. I could've said I'm not obligated to take part in this exercise, that you initiated, to try and solve a problem, that you helped create, yet here I am any, participating. And since you helped create this problem, it would nice if you could help solve it, instead of sitting back, quoting useless essays, and demanding that others create solutions tailored to your demands, without giving a hint as to what those demands are. - wolf15:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I did give a "hint": I won't oppose guidance that does not imply that <s>...</s> or <u>...</u> are permitted for the purpose of indicating document edits. That's the demand: comply with TPG. That's not my demand, that's what the community expects of editors.
Anything beyond is on your own initiative. You are the only editor insisting that these tags should be mentioned. You have not given a solid reason why. The onus is on you to either provide that, or else to propose a concrete formulation that can be discussed. Compromise is only possible when you explicate what you want. "Just mention them" is not that. Paradoctor (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
A "hint". Why not just cooperate, collaborate even? Make a suggestion, something that would you find acceptable. Point out items you would disagree with. With a little back and forth, I'm sure we could work something out. That would likely be a lot easier, and quicker, than this... process. - wolf18:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
"Ok, I can see where this is going." - oy. Ok, where do you see that going? Where could it possibly go, other than, perhaps... an outcome we can agree on? In my previous comment all I did was ask you to try collaborating, what sinister movtives could you possibly derive from that? Why not just try it, at least once? What have you got to lose? - wolf20:37, 15 October 2022 (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.
Minneapolis
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closed. No, User:SusanLesch, you haven't discussed on an article talk page. You have made a post on an article talk page taking issue with an edit, and then you came here. Discussion means an exchange of posts, not one post. A reasonable minimum is two or three posts, allowing 48 hours to elapse (to provide an opportunity to think about it, and then think about something else, and then think about it again). Use the article talk page for discussion. That's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2022 (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 added a photo today. Magnolia677 reverted me, saying it is a decorative image. When I restored it, he reverted again (called it "some promo pic"). Now he's accusing me of edit warring.
Magnolia677 is well aware that Owamni won the Best New Restaurant in the United States for 2022 from the James Beard Awards. (SandyGeorgia posted a review of the restaurant in three places, and Magnolia677 discussed it here at WP:DRN.) I object to him removing the photo and erasing the Dakota translation of St. Anthony Falls (Dakota: Owámniyomni) from which the restaurant derives its name.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You can mediate how the Minneapolis article treats the Owamni restaurant (including prose, image, and caption). You can help us select a photo (there are a few in Wikimedia Commons) and word a caption that is acceptable to all editors. I am willing to compromise and have confidence that a good outcome is likely.
Summary of dispute by Magnolia677
User:SusanLesch may have confused "edit summary" with "talk page". We have not discussed this particular issue--a photo uploaded yesterday--on the talk page; the last time I wrote anything on Talk:Minneapolis was September 13th, over a month ago. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Minneapolis 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.
Your Lie in April
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as not properly discussed. The filing editor also has not notified the other editors; if that were the only problem, I would leave the case open to provide time to notify the other editors. The discussion on the article talk page has been continuing for less than 24 hours. Even more importantly, the discussion does not seem to be about article content. At least, I do not see discussion of article content as being part of what is being discussed. There are insults, which are not useful, and an argument about whether certain edits are vandalism. Discussion of whether edits are vandalism is not useful. Either report the vandalism to the vandalism noticeboard, or don't report it because it isn't vandalism. If there is an issue about article content, discuss it on the article talk page. If a discussion of article content is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. In the meantime, remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2022 (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 have been involved in an edit war on this article over the past several days. I am willing to discuss any proposed changes to the article here. The other editor, Phil81194, pushed a number of changes, few of which were productive. Many of their edits served no apparent purpose and many of them involved deleting information with no explanation. As editor Xexerss pointed out, there may be actionable information scattered among the the unhelpful edits, and when Phil81194 made his original batch of edits, I took the time to sort through which ones were productive and which ones were not. However, the newest batch mainly consists of inexplicable structure changes to the article and removals of information, so I reverted the article to it's last stable version. As I explained in the edit summary, I have no problem with sorting out the useful from the unuseful information in Phil81194's most recent edits. However, this process should be done manually, and not through a revision, as per the reasons above. In the meantime, I strongly advise we keep the article stationed where it currently is. Cheers."
2 users replied and made it clear they did not read what I had written or carefully read/consider the edits in contention.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By carefully reading the relevant elements and enforcing a solution. I believe everything is covered there. If you need me to elaborate further in this section, I can do so.
Summary of dispute by Phil81194
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 216.30.147.90
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Phil81194 (talk·contribs) and 216.164.249.213 (talk) have been involved in an edit war over the organization of the article Your Lie in April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Phil81194 made a series of good faith edits to the article earlier this month. However, 216.164 took exception to these edits and reverted them claiming that they were "unhelpful/counterproductive edits".[20] Phil81194 reinstated the edits and included a few other good faith clarifications in the lead and other sections. But 216.164 once again reverted the changes, this time claiming they to be vandalism.[21]. This has resulted in an edit war between the two with 216.164 repeatedly calling Phil81194's edits vandalism. Xexerss (talk·contribs) stepped in and reverted one of 216.164's invalid vandalism claims[22] only for 216.164 to revert claiming that the edits were vandalism.[23]
As per WP:VANDALISM, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia."
At no point did 216.164 or Phil81194 attempt to discuss the dispute on the talk page until Xexerss stepped in with their single revert. Even in starting the discussion, 216.164 made no attempt to explain what they specifically found objectionable with Phil81194's edits other than they simply didn't like them and once again asserted the claim that Phil81194's edits were vandalism.
My involvement came about with a not very neutral notice on WT:ANIME[24] from 216.164. I pointed out to 216.164 that Phil81194's edits were not vandalism as they appeared to be a good faith effort to improve the article by made it more in line with similar articles. But instead of discussing a particular edit or change, 216.164 made a non-productive argument that I wasn't "looking at the edits" and that I was lying.[25] They then when on to revert the article back to their preferred version.[26] At this point, it is clear that 216.164 is not willing to discuss the specific problems they have with Phil81194's edits. 216.164 also seem to be engaged in forum shopping since they prematurely opened this DR without making any effort to discuss the matter with Phil81194 or other editors nor give time for additional non-involved editors to respond after they didn't get the initial response they were hoping for (that Phil81194's edits were vandalism). 216.30.147.90 (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Xexerss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Your Lie in April 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.
Bailey Zappe
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closed as not discussed in the right place. There has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page of one of the editors, but no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion of disagreement about article content should be on the article talk page, because third editors might also be watching or reading the article talk page, and might be able to help resolve the conflict, or might be involved in it, establishing a rough consensus. User talk page discussion is useful, but is not sufficient before bringing a disagreement to DRN. The editors should continue their discussion on the article talk page. If the discussion there is inconclusive after at least 48 hours, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2022 (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.
Repeatedly I have told Bluerules that the phrasing is incorrect. They aren't understanding. It's about more than one edit however one of the edits concerns explaining years of eligibility.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Perhaps another editor's explanation would be helpful.
Bailey Zappe discussion
Hey guys !! I am the DRN volunteer that will take care of this matter ! If you have any question or comment, feel free to leave them on this discussion or on my talk page Craffael.09 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2022 (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.
2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as premature. There has not been any real discussion on the article talk page, although there have been some posts by the filing party. There was one reply by Curbon7, who has not been named as a party to this case and should be named. Another editor has not made any comments on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If it is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2022 (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 explained to Curbon7 that leaving out the fact that Charlie Crist was both a governor of Florida and ran for governor in the same state in another election, is incorrect. It's revising history or leaving out pertinent facts. Going further it's an omission.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election 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.
Laurence Olivier
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
The discussion at the page talk pageis still active.
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 think (and hope) a mediator could help solve the conflict as it has been going on for 2 years now and we still have not come to consensus on our own.
Summary of dispute by Craffael.09
This all started with an unsigned comment left by an IP adress the 13th of December 2020 asking why there was no infobox on the WP page Laurence Olivier. Since then, there has been 2 votes and an edit war. Looking through the RfCs, I found this article's talk page. I took a look and saw the whole debate for the infobox. I immediately thought that the infobox must be included in the article. However, having received no response regarding the DR from the opposit front(against the infobox's inclusion, I will represent a typical person that is against the infobox's inclusion.
The main argument for the infobox not to be included is that it has no real informational value is in the lead section and that it would'nt really improve the article's readability. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2022 (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.
Multiple City and Town Pages in NC and SC
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person 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.
User:Washuotaku has repeatedly reverted edits that regard the use of the "Official Name" in the Template Template:Infobox settlement. I presented the evidence on why it's acceptable to have this included but the user has pushed back on my claims (Original discussion on their talk page) The last comment before today was asking for me to provide documentation and justification for my edits and I responded a day later with more evidence (Comment can be found on thier talk page.) They did not respond to comment and I believed that they agreed or at least accepted it as they said before my comment "show me the documentation. If you are unable to provide any validation, then this discussion is over." To only find out they ignored my comment for half a week (why I know that is they logged on and made edits to Wikipedia after my comment) and only responded after I called them out for it (after reverting my follow up edits to the town and city pages.) Overall, the user seems unprepared to give on this discussion even though I provided evidence which they requested. The user also refuses to debate further with me and demands I talk to someone who supports the use of "Official name" and I don't know of anyone who I could do that with. Which is why I filed this comment but I also think it's in the best interest of both parties to have a third party overlook the incident and hopefully solve it. Also, an example of the edits in question; Before ([28]), After ([29]). The user also seems to be objecting to the use of linking "City Type" to its corresponding Wiki page (Per this edit.)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A second opinion would be best in a situation like this. I have given the user all the evidence I can find about this feature which is included on thousands of articles across the United States and Canada. If there is an agreement on questioning the use of this feature, then this should be brought further to the community and possibly changing the template in question.
Summary of dispute by Washuotaku
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Multiple City and Town Pages in NC and SC 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.
Padre Pio
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Discussion has been ongoing for less than 24 hours. This is not a prolonged good faith attempt to resolve the issue amongst yourselves. While consideration is given that this is not a new issue in general- current discussion must still involve more than a day's attempt. As to POV issues- might I suggest the WP:POV noticeboard? Perhaps get a wiki project involved? Or, if you just want another person involved, you can see WP:3o. WP:RFC is also an option at this point. If none of those work, after longer discussion (Bare minimum 20ish comments over at least 3 days), then you may return and open a case here. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2022 (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 dispute is about the lead section of the article. It seems that the lead can be improved in various ways in accordance with official standards and recommendations. However any attempts to change the lead in the past weeks have been reverted on the grounds of catholic point of view.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You can explain whether the proposed changes in the lead section are written from a neutral point of view or from a catholic point of view.
Summary of dispute by Mr. bobby
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Padre Pio 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.
Multi-level marketing
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed. There are conduct allegations in this filing that are outside the scope of this noticeboard. The filing editor says that the other editor is using a bot to revert edits. Bot issues, if they really are bot issues, should be reported at the bot noticeboard or WP:ANI. If the filing editor is merely complaining that the other editor is editing in a bot-like manner (which does not seem to be the case), then their allegations are misplaced. The filing editor expresses a concern that the other editor is yelling vandalism. I have not seen any mention of vandalism except in this filing, so that mention appears to be a distraction. The filing editor also has not notified the other editor; that can be remedied. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If there really is a content dispute that does not involve idle talk of conduct, a new case can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2022 (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 MLM page is biased anti-MLM, using 20-year-old self-published sources. I have been trying to update the page, using broad-based sources, including FTC definitions and distinctions between legal and illegal practices. User MrOllie has set an auto bot to revert new content and refuses to discuss the updates on the talk page. Note this page has a long history of other users trying to make it more neutral, without success. Tonite's edit was reverted without checking that it was directly sourced from a book cited elsewhere in the article, and the FTC.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Allow neutral edits to be made, and block MrOllie from crying 'vandalism' when it doesn't match an anti-MLM mantra.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Multi-level marketing 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.
Book of Daniel
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The DRN is only for discussions that have had prolonged discussion- this dispute has been going on for less than 24 hours. Please give a prolonged good faith effort to find a compromise before returning to the DRN. You may wish to try the WP:NPOVN if this is a POV dispute- they do not require prolonged discussions and they will have NPOV experts. If, after 2-3 days of conversation you still cannot find a compromise- you are welcome to return here and open a case. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2022 (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.
We are discussing if something can be treated as a fact if there is a "scholarly consensus" of it, and if there is a scholarly consensus, do other positions not have the right to be mentioned? I'm hoping someone intelligent who has a good understanding of the NPOV can weigh in for me. I have a feeling as soon as I make an edit the gentleman will undo it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would just like someone who has a good understanding of the NPOV to read our dialogue and explain, to either me or him, that we are misunderstanding, Thank you!
okay my apologies, it seemed as if you were planning on not letting it through. Either way another experienced view commenting would be very nice to clear up our dispute Billyball998 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I understand you position but you are not the arbiter of what positions are mainstream enough for wikipedia, and even non mainstream positions are explained on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a dogma of only true things; it is an encyclopedia of knowledge, as ive explained through the NPOV links again and again. "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Billyball998 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Dating a book means assigning a book to a particular period of time, it doesn't refer to only the way we do it now. People did indeed date books in the middle ages. If Rashi says "This book is from xxx because I have a oral tradition that it is, or it uses a particular word" etc, that is dating a book, ie rashi is assigning a period to the creation of the book. I don't know what the sword-skeleton theory is sorry. Billyball998 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I didnt, I said that rashi stated it, that is all, i will add that he is a medival jewish scholar and i appriciate the ideanote for clarification. I will also add in the reason why modern bibilical scholars don't accept earlier dating like rashis (because they dont believe daniel received divine information obviously). Billyball998 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
all viewpoints can be represented on Wikipedia, including religious ones, I know I already sent you those links. This also includes miracles; by explaining the claims, of the religion, we are not asserting it to be true, we are merely preserving it for study. This is an encyclopedia, not a history text book. I am a historian I apricate veracity as much as anyone, these enumerations are more for the study of the positions on Daniel, than they are for the study on Daniel. Once again, the goal of wikipedia is not to explain the truth like a history book, it is to present knowledge, including myths, legends, miracles, the reader can discern for themselves what they believe. Of course it is important not to trick the reader or present the information biasedly, and I will do my best not to. This is why the Npov is important, so the reader can recieve a flat, unbiased account, and make their own determinations. This includes religious people! Wikipedia is not anti-religion, Wikipedia is not a fourm of the commonly accepted science and history, it includes all sorts of perspectives. Billyball998 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
You know Dumuzid reverted it because he couldnt find the concensus citation lol doesnt make any sense cause it already says concensus but it wasn't my changes.
"apologies, but I am not seeing the consensus you cite; seeing how there is pending dispute resolution, it makes sense to me to retain the ''status quo ante'' for now"Billyball998 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I hope the form of Rashi I presented in my revised edit was more agreeable. I agree its not a DR, i made the DR really for the meta dispute we were having about how to interpret the npov. Billyball998 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Bennv123
Was it necessary to bring this to WP:DRN just a few hours after this whole dispute started? Besides the OP, only one other editor even had the chance to respond to the discussion started at Talk:Book of Daniel. Why not wait for other interested editors to join the discussion at the article's talk page and see if consensus can be achieved? As the top of this page says: "Discussion normally should have taken at least two days..." before being brought here. Bennv123 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Dumuzid
Right. As I mentioned on my talk page, I think we are using different meanings of "consensus" here; you seem to mean the scholarly version, and I am talking about Wikipedia editors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Tricky indenting etiquette here, but I'll just chime in briefly to say that I am not sure this is really a matter for dispute resolution right now. As I see it, there's a current small but real 3-to-1 consensus against the proposed change. Billyball has provided me one source, which I am happy to consider, but this seems like more of a talk page issue. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm not the one who has reverted your edit. Why did you not fill their username as a party to this DRN? And I guess that even if me and them take a two weeks break from the article, you will still get reverted by other experienced editors.
Modern "scholars" who defend a different dating are either severely misinformed or religious bigots. See WP:FRINGE.
That the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing in the only view from the mainstream academia in respect to its dating. Let me repeat: in the mainstream academia there are no other views.
What is "dating a book"? It belongs to the historical method. The historical method is a post-Enlightenment product. So, there were no "datings of a book" before the Enlightenment. And the only people qualified to perform datings are mainstream modern historians. So, it is completely anachronistic to say that Rashi from the Middle Ages has "dated" the book to this or that century.
What's next? Wantonly deleting historical information from the Peloponnesian War until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment?
But you do try to pass Rashi's dating for genuine, modern historiography, or at least on a par with it. WP:GEVAL.
Please note that Bennv123 and Dumuzid have reverted your edits. I didn't. Not that I would shy from reverting your edits, but they were the first to respond.
I am not principally opposed to citing Rashi, but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Book of Daniel 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.
Malcolm Offord
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed. The filing editor has made a number of posts on the article talk page, but none of them have resulted in lengthy discussion. Also, the other editor whom the filing editor has listed is not the name of an editor, and it is not clear who they are trying to list. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion with an editor is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here if the name of the editor is spelled correctly and they are listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2022 (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 use of the title "Right Honourable" for Malcolm Offord. The other editor (relying on Wikipedia) believes that he is entitled to use it and that it should therefore be displayed. I referred to the House of Lords who say that he is not entitled to use it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The House of Lords takes precedence over a Wiki page. I would like to see the correct usage of title, perhaps with a note explaining the dispute.
Summary of dispute by AlexB4
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Malcolm Offord 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.
Pellumb Xhufi
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 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.
Location of dispute Articles about Greek-Albanian history and demographics, in particular the use of works by the specific author (so far) in:
There have been a lot of problems in Greek-Albanian history topics regarding the use of Albanian politician and historian Pellumb Xhufi as reference. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "aggressive nationalistic tone", "nationally one-sided scientific articles", "nationalist polemics", by various scholars. Controversial would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other available sources.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi the issue was proposed to be brought here in order to be assessed by uninvolved third-parties. The main question here is if an author that is widely involved in nationalist narrative both in his works but also in local news and TV shows can be used as wp:RS in wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
In this case serious issues arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Their use remains problematic - and certainly non- wp:RS- because of the following:
In collective academic works about the quality of Balkan-related historiography
[[31]] O.J. Schmitt of the Austrian Academy of Science (by the way a non-Balkan himself) reads (p. 726):
institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressive-nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi), which in both cases hardly shows any signs of self-reflection. Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. ... In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric ...Xhufi also published rich material, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays
[[32]], historian Konstantinos Giakoumis provides the following information on the subject:
p. 144: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatusis apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009;
Critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material
p. 173: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.
linguist D. Kyriazis reads [[34]] (translation here: [[35]]):
Xhufi 2016 (Arbërit e Jonit) in order to prove that the Greek-speaking pockets in south Albania are due to relatively recent settlements of populations that came from parts of present-day Greece, linguistic data are systematically bypassed or selectively used,
"Xhufi's , Dilemat e Arberit, 2006, offers partly nationalistic polemics against Greek historiography".
Another detailed critique by D. Kyriazis [38] (in Albanian).
Xhufi has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources [39].
Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows
A particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper [40]; claims about conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc. It is certainly not the narrative of a neutral historical but the typical narrative for internal national consumption. Similar deceleration also here [[41]].
Launched polemics against inclusion of the ethnicity question in the 2011 Albanian census claiming that it will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" [42], that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word [43].
Xhufi publicly calling for the expulsion of local religious leader, Anastasios of the Orthodox Church, because he is not part of the national project: [[44]] (p. 725) & [[45]]
At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here [[46]] (which has created hot debates in various discussions in wiki) the usual polemics are also dominant, declaring that:
“Greeks are manipulating history” & history should be “re-written again from scratch”, “everything down to Preveza is part of the Albanian habitat since the medieval age.”
Xhufi's statements about communist-era concentration camps in Albania received also negative critiques:
[[47]] Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad’.
His historical narrative differs only slightly from that of the authoritarian (pre-1991) regime of the P.R. of Albania: [[48]] (p. 65). Also modern Albanian officials do not hesitate to accuse him of taking the post of history professor during the People's Republic era: [[49]].
Xhufi is an active politician, former deputy minister in his country who frequently appears on local tv shows and displays nationalist rhetoric. Scholarship and news have heavily criticized his research. From my experience in wikipedia there were several less partisan cases of authors that were dismissed for not meeting wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Çerçok
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alltan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Khirurg
I agree with Alexikoua that this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved. I also agree with him regarding the criticisms of Xhufi. I do not think he should be used to source anything controversial. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ
It is patently clear that the insertion of Xhufi into a growing list of Balkan-related articles is part of a concerted POV push, and therefore a constant source of friction. The project would benefit greatly if editors simply restricted themselves to reliable sources, preferably those published in English, and refrained from inflaming tensions by citing activist authors like Xhufi, who is controversial for all the reasons outlined by Alexikoua above. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by SilentResident
Pellumb Xhufi has to be addressed for his reliability because he is being cited in a growing number of articles, without wp:consensus. I would like to point out that the English Wikipedia already has a content guideline explaining when a source may be considered as wp:unreliable: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Since Xhufi is known for having a poor reputation for fact-checking, for historical revisionism (see wp:pseudoscience), and is also known for espousing extremist views. IMO, Wikipedia ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views, and, 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him. Currently, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been violated, and Xhufi is remaining on all of these aforementioned articles despite wp:consensus policy stating that: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. I am hopeful the DRN can help resolve the dispute around Xhufi's reliability, because the RSN didn't help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Pellumb Xhufi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth Statement by Moderator on Pellumb Xhufi
I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. This will be somewhat different from other matters that I have moderated, so the rules and procedures will be somewhat different. I have two questions for the editors, both for those who have responded to the notice and for any other editors. First, do the editors agree that there is an issue about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi? Second, are there any other issues? Answer the questions in the space below. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. If there is agreement, I will then create a subpage for this discussion and provide a set of rules for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the question is whether and when the writings of Pellumb Xhufi are considered a reliable source. Please read the policy on reliable sources again. Please also read the rules. Editors are responsible for compliance with the rules.
Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided. Elsewhere, address your comments to the moderator and the community.
There have been no recent comments by the editors, and no updates to my machine-translated draft of a BLP of Draft:Pellumb Xhufi. If there are no further comments, we can either close this dispute, if the controversy over the use of Xhufi as a source has gone away, or we can get ready to start an RFC at the reliable source noticeboard. However, I will first advise the editors who wish to use Xhufi as a source that they will have a stronger argument if there is a BLP of Pellumb Xhufi in the English Wikipedia. Each editor may make an additional statement at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi, or ask any questions in the next 48 hours, after which point I will decide what the next steps are. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Eighth Statement by Moderator on Xhufi
There has been some back-and-forth discussion about Xhufi as a source here, but no controversy anywhere else. Do the editors want to continue discussing Xhufi as a source, or to publish an RFC at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, or put the question of Xhufi as a source in the background? If no one is in a hurry to address the question of source reliability and Xhufi, then I will close the discussion at the main DRN, page and leave the subpage open (since it is not automatically archived), and we can revive it if there are any more contentious edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Eighth 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.
Slavery in Afghanistan
Latest comment: 2 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed as futile. One editor states that they have removed incorrect content that is either unsourced or not supported by the sources. However, they edit intermittently, and do not appear to be available to engage in discussion about their edits. Their explanations of the edits that they have made, removing content with which they disagree, are too incomplete for discussion, and they have not answered what sort of timing or schedule will be feasible for them to discuss the article. It is not practical to try to engage in dispute resolution with an editor who only edits intermittently, and whose comments are so incomplete as to be useless. I am closing this attempt at dispute resolution.
My advice to the other editors is to resume normal editing of the article. They should take care that the content in the article is supported by the sources, which is always important in Wikipedia. If one editor's edits are reverted, it would be best to allow another (third) editor to review. That is always a reasonable way to avoid edit-warring. However, an editor who does not discuss their edits usefully and only edits intermittently should not hold up improvement of an article.
My advice to User:Minahatithan is either to find the time to discuss their edits or expect that their edits will be reverted.
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.
One user is attempting to remove information about a group of people being enslaved after a civil uprising. He has already broken the 3RR once, but after the block, the dispute has stayed on the talk page only. A second user is claiming that the first user has a bias against the article while the first user claims that there is no such bias.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
An uninvolved third-party might help to identify which editor is in the wrong and if the article really is discriminatory or not.
Summary of dispute by Aciram
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The article describe how many of the Hazara people were enslaved following the uprising of the 1890s, and were still enslaved when slavery was abolished 30 years later. User Minahatithan have stated that they are themselwes Hazara, and that they find it to be shameful and disonorable against the Hazara to mention the above in the article. I have tried to explain that feelings such as shame, honor, dishonor and the reputation of an ethnic group has no place when discussing what should and should not be in an article, but without success. I no longer have the energy to keep explaining this, since I have neither the time nor the energy. Please view the discussion page of the article: User Minahatithan continue to talk about the honor of an ethnic group in almost every post. Because of this attitude, they appear biased, and not to be a suitable editor of this article. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Minahatithan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In the article, some contents without evidence and sources are mentioned about Hazara, which do not tell us the truth. Sources and evidence about the Hazaras are only in (1888–1893 Hazara uprisings) In 1888–1893 about 60% of them were massacred and some were enslaved and emigrants. I don't know why User:Aciram has taken a hard position about Hazaras and acts very emotional, accusing me of rudeness, shame about some cases and biased, while I didn't say anything disrespectful or offensive to them.
And now User:Aciram has added some sources in the article that contradict the contents of the article.
While the slaves in Afghanistan never had a specific ethnicity, we should not express information without evidence and sources about a group of people based on our judgment. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Slavery in Afghanistan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
A revert was made by @Minahatithan: this morning which was reverted by @Aciram:. Both users had been engaged in an edit war before and @Minahatithan: has been blocked before on the same article for edit warring. It seems to be undoing an edit that was undone during the previous rounds of edit warring. No consensus had been reached on the article talk page at the time of the edit. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
RPI2026F1, I didn't make the first changes in the article until dispute resolution is over, but I prevented those changes from being done. I have also provided my explanation of reverting to the edit summary. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone ! I am the DRN volunteer that will now make this dicussion come to a fair consensus. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them on this discussion or my talk page. :) Craffael.09 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator on Afghan slavery
I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules, which are the usual rules for discussion here. I will repeat some of the rules, but if I do not repeat a rule, it is still a rule. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. That is, don't talk about the other editors, but about the article. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. Address your comments to the moderator, and to the community, who is represented by the moderator. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the section marked for the purpose (and it may be ignored or read there). I expect each editor to respond to my questions and requests for statements within 48 hours. If you know that you will not be able to participate in discussion for more than 48 hours, please let me know, and I may pause the discussion. I do not claim to have any particular knowledge about the topic of slavery in Afghanistan. I expect the editors and the article to provide that knowledge to me, as the article should for the readers.
The zeroth question is: Do all the editors agree to take part in moderated discussion?
The first request is that I am asking each editor to state, in one or two paragraphs, what they want changed in the article (and where in the article), or what they want kept the same if another editor wants to change it. First we should know what content is in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Statement 1.1 by moderator (Afghan slavery)
Please state, in one or two paragraphs, what you want changed in the article, and where in the article, or what you want kept the same if another editor wants to change it.
Reply to question nr 1: I must be frank and reply that I do not have the time to participate in a long discussion. This has already taken too much time, and I am busy in my offline life. Since this has already started, I will nevertheless post my reply below, but I simply can not give too much time to this issue.
Reply to question nr 2: I want to keep some facts in the article. Another editor wish to remove them, as far as I have understood, for reasons of honor/dishonor. The facts in question are as following:
Fact 1) After the Hazara Uprising of the 1880s-1890s, many Hazara were enslaved. This is referenced in the article, and also described here: [50], [51], [52], [53], p 60, [54], p 102, [55] p 90, [56], p 80-81,
Fact 2) Hazara people were still kept in slavery in the 20th-century. This is referenced in the article and also described in [57], [58], p 75,[59], [60], [61] p 90, [62], p 80-81,
Fact 3) At the time when slavery was abolished in Afghanistan in the 1920s, many of the slaves were Hazara (Indeed, in many of the books, slaves seem to be equalled to Hazara, but the article does not say so). This is referenced in the article and also described in: [63], [64], p 75, [65], [66], p 60, [67], p 102, [68] p 90, [69], p 80-81,
The above facts are the disputed ones, as far as I understand. The reason I wish to keep them in the article is simply because they appear to be facts. I am aware that I have been accused of having some sort of ethnic prejudice, but I barely know anything about these ethnic groups and are only interested in the facts of slavery in Afghanistan, and so this belong to the subject of the article. That is why I whish to keep it there. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Question #0: I will take part in moderated discussion. I am pretty busy this week in real life, so I might be slow to respond. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Question #1: I am only trying to reword the lead to make sure it gives equal weight to the entire article and I wanted to reword a sentence that mentions an ethnicity of slave masters which was unverified. I do not want to touch the sentence talking about who was enslaved. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The sources you provided are quite acceptable, but they are still not quite on the topic we are arguing about. Please do not mention the stories of Khaled Hosseini as evidence and truth. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator on Afghan slavery
The two editors who have replied do not appear to have any significant disagreement as to article content. Aciram opposes certain changes, and so wants to leave those parts of the article as they are. User:RPI2026F1 wants to make a change to the wording of the lede. Please specify exactly what the change is. I thought that the reason for this discussion was a disagreement with User:Minihatithan, who has not edited in the past four days.
I will leave this discussion open for about two more days to see if Minihatithan responds, or if the two other editors have any disagreements between them. If there is no response, I will close this discussion and provide closing comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
My disagreements come with what @Minahatithan wants to change, which are the facts I presented above. Me and RPI2026F1 have largely been in agreement, and have agreed on some changes in the article. It is the changes Minahatithan which to make which are the origin of this dispute. I have the impression Minahatithan which to remove things because of ethnic bias, and that they should therefore be blocked from editing this specific article. This conclusion is drawn from the statements made by Minahatithan on the discussion page of the article. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Note; it would be a shame if this discussion was close before a reply from Minahatithan. User Minahatithan are often gone for days at the time, and will then return to the article Slavery in Afghanistan, where many attempts to reach an agreement in this issue has failed. If this is not adressed somehow, then that article discussion may never end. It does need some sort of solution. It would be a very positive thing if the discussion could be left open until Minahatithan replied. --Aciram (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
RPI2026F1, I never deleted the important and major part of the article, you can see my edits in the article. What I want to delete is a minor and even unnecessary matter, and it also has no source and evidence. I have explained this many times, but I don't know why no one pays attention. Minahatithan (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I have posted to the user talk page of User:Minihatithan, to ask whether they are willing to take part in moderated discussion. As requested by the other editors, I will leave this discussion open for three or four more days to see if Minihatithan responds. I am reminding User:Minihatithan that they should either discuss the article, here at DRN, or leave the article alone.
In the meantime, if the other editors want to improve the article, they may do so. We won't hold up normal editing any further because of an intermittent editor.
If I close this discussion due to no response by Minihatithan, I will do so with an opinion that they should not edit the article without discussing it first, and that editing without discussion is considered disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, sorry for the late reply due to my busy schedule. Content is written in the article, which is unlikely to be true because there are no sources to support it. And the article should be edited and some cleaning done. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The reason for the editorial controversy in this article [71] - [72] was based on its truth because the content of the edit, one of which was just made by the User:Aciram, contradicted to its source (sources). The purpose of my arguments in this matter were these things. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors on Afghan slavery
Fourth statement by moderator on Afghan slavery
What I can understand at this point is that User:Minihatithan made an edit that was reverted. Other than that, they have not said enough to permit dispute resolution. They have written that the article should be edited and cleaned up. That is not sufficient information to resolve a content dispute. Please read Be Specific at DRN. It also appears that Minihatithan edits intermittently, and does not have time to discuss their edits. If an editor does not stay active long enough to discuss their edits, they should expect that their edits will be reverted. If I have to close this case due to poor response, I will advise the other editors that they may revert any edits by Minihatithan. I don't like this, but making edits and not being available to discuss them is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, The purpose of cleaned up is to remove some false, unsourced and unnecessary contents, which are not good and suitable for the article. Why are there such false contents in the article?
If User:Minihatithan wants to continue to take part in dispute resolution, I am asking them to provide a list of edits that they think should be made to the article, and to state how often they can expect to respond to questions. They haven't yet responded adequately to my questions. Their most recent response is fragmentary, and not an adequate basis for discussion. If they do not have time to provide a list of requested edits and a schedule, then I will have to close this case. If so, I will advise them to avoid this article, and advise the other editors to revert their edits.
Robert McClenon, This edit is better and more appropriate because some of the incorrect contents, which was also incorrect in its sources, is removed. Only the unsourced and unnecessary contents have been removed and modified. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors on Afghan slavery
Back-and-forth discussion on Afghan slavery
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.
20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Absolutely zero attempt has been made to discuss this on the article talk page. 1 person made a suggestion, 1 person agreed, 1 person disagreed, and original poster decided to come here. Thats not how this process works. You three need to spend time discussing on the article talk page and make an attempt to solve the problem through collaboration first. If, after prolonged discussion and a serious attempt at solving this on your own, you remain at a stalemate, then you can return here. I know that it has been 3 days- but its not just the length of time- its also the number of posts. And five posts is not a prolonged discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2022 (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 'Protest' seems exceedingly inconsequential to the overall goal of providing an informative article about the congress itself, and originally there was no justification given for its relevancy (you can read about this on the talk page). Upon probing for more justification, the response given was that several English-speaking news outlets pointed out that the protest happened as the Congress approached, which still seems like a stretch for relevancy. Anyways, instead of continuing with the discussion, this justification was taken as sufficient by the opposing user, the section reverted back into existence, and when un-reverted for the sake of reaching proper consensus first, the original user bringing the issue up on the talk page was reported and then blocked for editing (due to 3RR). None of this seemed conducive to reaching any meaningful conclusion on the topic, and so outside assistance is likely to be the best course of action.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
As it stands, the debate has not reached any meaningful conclusion, but trying to revert the section before consensus is reached seems to result in reporting of the offending users. Having outside users weigh in and offer actual discussion could help as the current situation is essentially a non-discussion, only a thinly-veiled edit war.
Summary of dispute by 173.212.124.217
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JeffUK
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Normchou
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party 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.
Multi-level Marketing
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Closed as declined by the other editors. One of the editors has stated that the issues are behavioral, and this is not the correct forum. The other editor has stated that this dispute is the same as the previous DRN filing. In the previous filing, the filing editor alleged conduct issues, which are not in the scope of this noticeboard. So it appears that all of the editors think that there are conduct issues. Conduct issues may be reported at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay before filing a report at WP:ANI. If the filing editor thinks that there is gatekeeping or that constructive edits are being reverted, they can submit a Request for Comments, but be sure that the request is specific and is neutrally worded. Do not edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2022 (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.
All of my constructive edits get instantly reverted as 'promotional and misleading edits' [74], which they clearly are not. Every attempt at discussing it on the talk page is rebuffed. I'm trying to add balancing data from scholarly sources external to the industry to balance the thinly-sourced material. I was cited with edit warring when I'm not the one removing content, but rather all reverts but one were from other editors who (falsely) claim these as 'promotional' sources. Rather than accept anything except their POV, they are threatening to protect the article to keep alternate material from surfacing.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Multiple discussions on Talk page, search on Google Scholar, and previous request for dispute resolution.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
restore the sourced material and edits, and admonish those who have been deleting them about the rules for NPOV
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.