Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 230

Archive 225

←

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

→

Archive 235

United States

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Shoreranger on 14:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Shoreranger (talk · contribs) KlayCax (talk · contribs) إيان (talk · contribs) Dhtwiki (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Three editors agree but twice another editor has removed a subsection to "Culture" in the article which the first three agree should introduce the reader to the reality that African-Americans are a unique population in American society because of slavery and its legacy, which prevented them from fully participating in mainstream culture and resulted in a significant parallel body of artistic expression that eventually gained internal and external appreciation. The legacy of the use of law, politics, and social convention to suppress African-American culture is unique within American society and requires inclusion in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:United_States#African-American_culture_2 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Mediation Summary of dispute by KlayCax Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by إيان I agree with everything Shoreranger has said on the matter, here and on the talk page. Dhtwiki was the lone objector involved in that talk page discussion. For me, the consensus was clear for Shoreranger to make the changes they sought to make, but perhaps this mediation will more provide a more solid consensus. إيان (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dhtwiki Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. United States discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other three editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks: I've corrected that. Shoreranger (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:KlayCax - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:Dhtwiki - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (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.

Khangar (community)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Python2019 on 01:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Khangar (community) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Python2019 (talk · contribs) Discospinster (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute resolution request for Khangar (community) Requester: Python2019‬ User(s) against whom you are lodging this request: Discospinster, MrOllie Article(s) in dispute: Khangar (community) Description of the dispute: My edits to the article are well-referenced and adhere to a neutral point of view. However, other users have repeatedly reverted the changes without providing specific reasons or engaging in constructive dialogue. I have tried discussing the issue on their talk pages, but we have not reached a consensus. I encourage them to review and modify the content as needed, rather than reverting to a previous version. Relevant diffs: [1] Relevant talk page discussions: User talk:Discospinster, User talk:MrOllie -- Python2019 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Python2019#April_2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Discospinster#Khangar%20Community How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe that we should focus on modifying the article in question to address any potential issues rather than simply reverting to a previous version. If there are specific concerns about neutrality or accuracy, please identify them so that we can work together to find a suitable resolution. It's important that we collaborate in good faith to ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information for all users. Summary of dispute by Discospinster Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I, along with User:MrOllie, have addressed specific concerns about User:Python2019's editing in several places, such as in edit summaries, on their talk page, and on my talk page. Python2019 simply responds with "let's discuss this" and continues replacing cited content with uncited, non-neutral content. ... discospinster talk 16:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Khangar (community) 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.

Miller%E2%80%93Casella thermometer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fredo038 on 07:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Miller–Casella thermometer  Users involved Fredo038 (talk · contribs) XAM2175 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This concerns a paragraph added by Fredo038 that contributes to enrich the content with known and sourced facts. This paragraph was maliciously deleted by XAM2175 with inappropriate and inconsistent reasons. XAM2175 does not provide any scientific argument for his approach. As a specialist in the subject, this paragraph is a very important element for the understanding of the use of these thermometers. I am waiting for the paragraph to be restored so that it can be improved. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miller%E2%80%93Casella_thermometer How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The only way to resolve the conflict is to restore the paragraph in question and have XAM2175's action recognized as an act of vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by XAM2175 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Miller%E2%80%93Casella thermometer discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - Fredo038, the dispute resolution noticeboard is for resolving content disputes. We do not determine what is or is not vandalism nor do we edit the articles discussed. We serve as a discussion forum where a volunteer moderator guides parties in a dispute in a calm and purposeful discussion to resolve the dispute. I also note you have not notified the other party in their talk page appropriately. When starting a case here, you are expected to let the other editor know through their talk page (such as by using {{DRN-notice}}). I have done so for you in this case. If XAM2175 is willing to participate, I am willing to moderate a discussion on this issue but I have very little patience for personal attacks or accusing other editors of bad-faith editing (such as vandalism). Nonetheless, I am very optimistic we can quickly find a solution that both parties can agree with regarding the paragraph in question. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I am willing to participate, but I'm not aware of the structure used in this forum. I would also note that Fredo038 made further stringent allegations of bad faith towards me by e-mail before commencing the talk-page discussion, including a claim that I have "massacred" their contributions to Wikipedia. XAM2175 (T) 11:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I wasn't party to the original dispute, but I've long been both an ally and adversary of @XAM2175 - we mostly agree on each other's contributions, we occasionally differ and revert each other, but I see that as a vital part of the checks and balances that keep Wikipedia. relevant. XAM2175 has never been inconsistent, inappropriate, nor malicious. I am very surprised that @Fredo038, an editor active for five years with 140 edits, would fail so badly to assume good faith on the part of XAM2175. Content discussion aside, the very least Fredo038 should do is to reword his/her statement and apologise. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I want to apologize for the fact that I was a bit too hard on XAM2175. However, I can't accept to say that he is in good faith since the problem is repeated on several Wikipedia pages, precisely targeting my contributions, where he starts by making a lawsuit against me. How do you call that? Good faith suggests that one does not delete contributions of others according to one's wishes and that one starts by discussing with the authors when possible. Fredo038 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) As for the dispute itself, I find my self siding with removal. The very selective content added does not make clear its relevance to this particular thermometer, nor does it offer any insight into the conclusion of the research and how subsequent thermometer designs were improved as a result. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC) I have also contributed in a similar way to many French Wikipedia pages and I have never had to complain because there has always been a respect for contributions of any kind as long as they respect the Wikipedia:Editing Policy which insists that Wikipedia articles do not have to be perfect. Fredo038 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2023 (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.

2020 United States Presidential Election in Pennsylvania

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 137.140.211.152 on 17:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2020 United States Presidential Election in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Stuart8 (talk · contribs) AveryTheComrade (talk · contribs) Dingers5Days (talk · contribs) CharolttesMaps (talk · contribs) Planetberaure (talk · contribs) ElipsActual (talk · contribs) Alexcs114 (talk · contribs) Gust Justice (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute is about what types of maps to allow on the infobox of the article. There are currently maps showing results by county, municipality and precinct. There has been discourse on whether or not results by other forms of government or subdivisions should be allowed, such as results by congressional district, Catholic diocese or state patrols. A user posted a map of election results by Catholic diocese, some people thought it was a joke map or an Election Twitter meme and supported removing it. The user who made it said she made it as a serious map and not a joke. In the Talk section of the article, someone linked to a Tweet trying to make it seem like it was a joke but the Tweet was taken out of context. Some individuals support allowing more maps as it can provide useful information about voting patterns by religion, education and more in their view. The talk section of the Catholic diocese map drama was closed by someone, however there is still discourse and debate over the usefulness of these maps and whether an online encyclopedia should hold these maps. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#%22Results_by_catholic_diocese%22 There was extensive discussion on the Talk page of the article before it was closed by someone. The conflict has also been discussed in other spaces (as the Wiki discussion page mentions Twitter), no agreement has been reached between the 2 sides. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help determine if the Catholic diocese map should be allowed on the Wikibox and setting future standards for what types of maps should be allowed on there as there is no clear consensus on if precinct maps should be allowed or results by Congressional district or stuff like state patrols and Catholic diocese. There is no set standard in place and the debate over the rules is heated. Summary of dispute by Stuart8 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AveryTheComrade Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dingers5Days Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CharolttesMaps Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Planetberaure Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ElipsActual Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Alexcs114 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gust Justice Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2020 United States Presidential Election in Pennsylvania 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.

Military budget_of_Russia#Unofficial_estimates

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2601:645:C480:25D0:1905:4254:C253:8D6E on 03:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Military budget of Russia#Unofficial estimates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hypnôs (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I wrote a 90+ citation article drawing from Wikipedia approved 'acceptable' sources, calculating the military spending of Russia. I put it in UNOFFICIAL estimates and some editor keeps deleting it. I only used the sorts of sources one would see in The Economist, and cited EIA, World Bank, SIPRI, Rostat, Russian Ministry Of Defense, and other reputable sources. I extensively used archive.org for citations when the original was unavailable. Some editor just deletes it because I cited my own article. This is a synthetic article: combining primary research. It is not an analytic article: I do not need to be an expert to cite the research. I am an expert, but fine, let's dismiss that aspect. They should EVALUATE THE RESEARCH instead of dismissing. Is wikipedia a consensus engine, or an encyclopedia? If the former, then fine. Delete away. But if it's actually an encyclopedia, then the factuality of my claims must be evaluated. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_budget_of_Russia How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Deny Hypnôs or anyone the ability to delete an article without first evaluating it. It does not matter that I wrote it. The article is filled with auditable math. Discovery. Theoretically the purpose of wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Hypnôs Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Military budget_of_Russia#Unofficial_estimates 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.

Kazimir Malevich

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bigshlomo on 14:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kazimir Malevich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bigshlomo (talk · contribs) Skyerise (talk · contribs) Sinestro (talk · contribs) Mellk (talk · contribs) Ymblanter (talk · contribs) Krispe13 (talk · contribs) LeviFreiglichter (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Currently, Kazimir Malevich is listed as a Russian artist. This stems from the failure to differentiate Russian and Ukrainian culture during the 19th and 20th century because of the destruction and oppression of Ukraine's national identity by the Russian empire and USSR. This has reflected itself in older academic writing. These old sources can no longer be used as as a basis to list Malevich as Russian. New articles reflect the realization of Ukrainian figures as UKRAINIAN and the decolonization process of Ukraine's culture and national identity. While its true that Malevich lived in Russia and the USSR, he self identified as Ukrainian a number of times and his art was profoundly influenced by Ukraine and his identity as a Ukrainian, by his own admission and the style of his work. Malevich's Ukrainian identity is the root of his notability, he is no different than figures such as Taras Shevchenko and other Ukrainian politicians alive during the same time who lived in Russia and were no less "Russian" than Malevich but are undoubtedly considered Ukrainian by wikipedia and every other relevant academic institution. This debate has been going on for a year, with almost all editors agreeing Malevich is Ukrainian. Except for 2. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kazimir_Malevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kazimir_Malevich#Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kazimir_Malevich#Kazimir_Malevich_is_Ukrainian!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kazimir_Malevich#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_16_October_2022 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kazimir_Malevich#Hotbed_of_Anonymous/POV/Subjective_Edits_Removing_Mention_of_Anything_'Ukrainian' How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help the opposing party see the light (the light being that Malevich is Ukrainian) Summary of dispute by Skyerise Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sinestro Kazimir Malevich must be recognized as a Ukrainian painter. The Russian Empire was as imperialist as it was a multi-ethnic state. It is wrong to judge the person's identity by the name of the Empire and not by his actions (art and written documents) and views during his life. Malevich's early years in villages and settlements throughout Ukraine, his early exposure to Ukrainian culture and traditions, and the later association with Kyivan artists had a profound impact on his artistic development. Malevich wrote two autobiographical essays in 1923-25 and 1933. In the latter one he wrote explicitly: "... We reminisced about the Ukraine. We were both Ukrainians.". The latter autobiography, in which he clearly identifies himself as Ukrainian, can be interpreted as a veiled form of protest against the man-made famine known as the Holodomor, which occurred in 1932-1933. As an artist, he depicted the tragic situation of Ukrainian peasants during the forced collectivization and the Holodomor. His pencil drawing "Three figures or "Where there is sickle and hammer, there is death and hunger", shows three figures with their facial features replaced by sickle and hammer, a cross and a coffin. His other works "Enslaved Ukraine", "The Man Who Runs" are also dedicated to this event. It is essential to recognize Malevich as a Ukrainian painter to understand the full extent of his artistic contributions. Many museums around the world (Stedelijk Museum, Metropolitan Museum and Museum of Modern Art) have already embraced this perspective. I accept the rules of the dispute resolution. Summary of dispute by Mellk Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There has been an online campaign to change this, so naturally we had a bunch of newly created accounts and SPAs (including the filer) arrive at this particular article without regard for the guidelines which has required the article to be protected a bunch of times. The vast majority of RS say one thing and there is no good reason to not follow the guidelines on this. Mellk (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ymblanter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not interested in participating here. We have a bunch of relatively new accounts, some of them likely socks of blocked users, all of them pushing POV. The link at the talk page shows that this is a personal POV pushing by a single person who has a lot of energy but is not a respectable academic.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Krispe13 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by LeviFreiglichter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Kazimir Malevich discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Malevich) I have some preliminary comments on this dispute. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. They should do this on their user talk pages. {{DRN-notice}} may be used for that purpose. Second, this is a contentious topic. Editors who agree to participate in this dispute resolution are agreeing that they are aware of the contentious topics procedure. I have written a set of rules that apply to dispute resolution in contentious topics areas. The ArbCom has established these procedures to minimize battleground editing about areas that have historically been real battlegrounds. In this case, the tenses of the verbs in referring to the battleground are both past tense and present tense. So if you agree to take part in this dispute resolution, you agree that you have been alerted to special procedures for dealing with disruptive editing. Third, this appears to be only secondarily about article content, and primarily about policy, of how to refer to the nationality of a person who was born in Kyiv in the late nineteenth century, because article content should follow policy. Fourth, I will be making an inquiry at a policy-oriented forum as to what Wikipedia policy is about referring to the nationality of a person who was born in Kyiv in the late nineteenth century. These rules will also apply to any discussion at any other forum. Fifth, please state in the section for your statements that you accept the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC) The editors have already been let know. Bigshlomo (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC) I’d also like to comment that “a person who’s notability is due to his Ukrainian identity” is a more fitting than “born in Kyiv” since that what this dispute revolves around. There’s also already precedent to name figures like this as Ukrainian. Bigshlomo (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Malevich) 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.

Daf James

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Caerdyddcymru on 20:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Daf James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Caerdyddcymru & Jamiebuba (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have contributed an article about the Welsh writer "Daf James", which I have extensively sourced his successful career over the last 10 year. This has been declined within an hour as not a notable person or insignificant sourcing. As such I'm seeking your resolution on whether this should be published. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Send a message to which I received an automated response re resolution. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Review the article I've submitted an make an independent decision. Daf James has been described as the future of Welsh theatre, so this is clearly a notable person within Welsh culture that deserves a page. Also, this week alone his BBC drama Lost Boys and Fairies has been described in the media as ground breaking. Summary of dispute by Caerdyddcymru & Jamiebuba Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Daf James discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Courtesy link Draft:Daf James this is a declined draft not an article, the draft needs the addition of independent sources and can then probably be accepted there is NO dispute? Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Asked and answered at AfC Help Desk, April 20. Creating editor acknowledged advice given there. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2023 (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.

Caso Apoquindo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Frutillente on 04:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute es:Caso Apoquindo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Frutillente (talk · contribs) Alpinu (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm sorry as the dispute in spanish, but a brief overview of the matter is: I believe the proper title of the page should be "Masacre de Apoquindo" or Apoquindo Massacre. This is due to two main reasons: the first is that it was in fact an event in which chilean police forces murdered innocent civilians as they surrounded insurgents who had stolen a bank. The second is that there was another "Caso Apoquindo" related to sexual abuse of children, and improper labeling of the incidents could cause confusion. Alpinu has reverted my changes without proper justification and has threatened for my account to be blocked due to "arbitrary changes" despite the fact that I gave an extensive justification when editing the page. They also deleted the category of "Masacres de Chile" with no primary or secondary sources backing up Alpinu's claims. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I tried discussing this on my own discussion page, where I was notified that I could be blocked due to arbitrary editing. [[2]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like for you to review the evidence I brought forth arguing why it is more proper to a) have the title of the page be "Masacre de Apoquindo" (If it has to do with the page url, I can understand it being different) and b) why it should be included in the list of "Masacres de Chile". Summary of dispute by Alpinu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Caso Apoquindo discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. What? This seemed to be something disruptive, both the filing party and the another party wasn't editing on such article and the talk page of this article is not exist. -Lemonaka‎ 04:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC) This appears to be about es:Caso Apoquindo. @Frutillente: This noticeboard only deals with disputes in the english Wikipedia. If your dispute is on eswiki, you will need to follow whatever proccess eswiki has to solve editing disputes. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, sorry to trouble you! Thank you for the help. Frutillente (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2023 (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.

GISAID

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tobeortobebetter on 15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute GISAID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tobeortobebetter (talk · contribs) BD2412 (talk · contribs) AppleBsTime (talk · contribs) Wacomshera (talk · contribs) CNMall41 (talk · contribs) AncientWalrus (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This article is about an organisation called GISAID which is behind a virus genome database. The database was established as a collaboration between the GISAID organisation and the Swiss Institute for Bioinformatics (SIB), whereby GISAID would provide funding for the SIB to establish the database. In 2009, the two organisations fell out with SIB disconnecting the database from GISAID, alleging that the agreed funding had not been provided. A legal dispute ensued, with GISAID suing the SIB. These events were covered in the media at the time, and are not for the most part in dispute here. The outcome of this legal dispute was that GISAID (which had brought the action) was ordered in 2014 to pay $1M to the SIB. This is attested to by primary sources from the legal action, a secondary legal source, and most recently a news article in Science magazine. The current dispute is over whether it is reasonable to include the outcome of this legal dispute in some form in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:GISAID#Dispute_with_SIB How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Providing mediation, advice on Wikipedia policy, and advice on next steps. Summary of dispute by BD2412 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It is a bit premature to bring this issue to DRN. I see that not all participants in the discussion appear to have been notified/listed as participants. With respect to the point in contention, which is a court decision awarding arbitration damages in a proceeding well after the dispute itself was effectively resolved, there is an absence of consensus on the question of whether this information is at all noteworthy. As explained repeatedly in the discussion, outcomes on post-litigation motions are run-of-the-mill occurrances that are routinely excluded from articles on entities because they will inherently be WP:UNDUE. Properly explaining the actual legal insignificance of such an occurrance would take a disproportionate amount of text in the article. There are sources that discuss the effect of the 2009 dispute on the actions of the parties. There is, as noted in the discussion, no source that specifies that because of the 2014 decision, anything at all changed with respect to the parties. The important information is already in the article, and editors on the talk page are welcome to try and generate a consensus there before escalating this here. BD2412 T 16:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) I did not want to spam editors who had only made passing comments in this dispute, but have now notified/added all editors. The existing talk discussion on this issue has involved 48 messages to date. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AppleBsTime Agree with the comments of User:BD2412 that this seems an unnecessary escalation, and if the complaint were to be accepted, it's contrary to WP:UNDUE. I have a hard time seeing how a dispute that had no visible impact on either of the involved entities is encyclopedic in nature. - AppleBsTime (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CNMall41 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It can be very frustrating for new editors to understand why good articles will include or exclude certain things. I think BD has done a very patient job of explaining this, in this situation.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC) GISAID 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.

Windows 11 version history

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Awesome Aasim on 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Windows 11 version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs) Asdasf asdas (talk · contribs) Edgardo Aurellano (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to remove the latest version content that has been split onto a separate page because I believe that listing it on the main page would result in violations of Wikipedia policies like WP:NOTCHANGELOG. However, I have not gotten any response, and any attempt to reinstate my edit has resulted in further reverts. I have pinged them on the talk page but they have not responded. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Windows 11 version history User_talk:Edgardo Aurellano How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It might be helpful to discuss whether this split is actually in line with policy, or if the old content is in line with policy, or both, or neither. I do want an uninvolved opinion from other experienced editors into the matter to see which one is better. Summary of dispute by Asdasf asdas Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Edgardo Aurellano Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Windows 11 version history 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.

Dual numbers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Svennik on 20:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Dual number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Svennik (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User D Lazard keeps removing well-known connections between the dual numbers and more advanced topics in mathematics. These connections are well known as I have found from discussions with algebraic geometers, logicians and topos theorists. In particular, the spectrum of the dual numbers is well-known (at least, among the algebraic geometers I've spoken to) as a simple example of a non-reduced scheme. For logicians and topos theorists, the dual numbers show up explicitly in Lawvere's Synthetic differential geometry. The dual numbers are also mentioned by name in the article on Exalcomm. Lazard argues that there aren't any references to this by name in the literature. I personally doubt it, but I haven't worked deeply enough in the above areas to be sure that he's wrong. I've certainly spoken to experts in the above areas and these connections are known to them under the explicit name dual numbers. The edit war story is this: Some users added this advanced material some years ago. Then Lazard removed the material. Then I reverted Lazard's revert 2 years ago. Then Lazard reverted my revert just after. 2 years later, I've restored the material, and begun this process here. We haven't heard any 3rd opinions yet. I might've been too hasty in reverting. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk page discussion where only myself and Lazard have participated. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Say whether the material should be kept. Or satisfy Lazard's concerns. Dual numbers 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.

Dhaka

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by UnpetitproleX on 14:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Dhaka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs) A.Musketeer (talk · contribs) Solomon The Magnifico (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I edited the Dhaka article to add content about partition-related history (in particular the partition-induced demographic shifts in the city), using three scholarly sources. An editor seems adamant that these will not be added to the page, and keeps reverting every edit related to it that I make to the article (1 2 3). Despite multiple requests for sources on the talk page to demonstrate why the content doesn’t belong in the article, the editor hasn’t really come up with any sources. My sources, to which I’ve added another (non-scholarly) one, are available here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Dhaka#Undue_content_in_the_lead How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? At the very least a solid reason for why scholarly-cited additions to the article do not belong there. Summary of dispute by A.Musketeer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Solomon The Magnifico Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dhaka discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Apologies, I had been busy elsewhere. Done now. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Question: Seeing that it is now the fourth day since this began, and the other editor does not seem to participate at all, can the silence be taken as no objection? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2023 (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.

Charles III

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Miesianiacal on 20:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Charles III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Miesianiacal (talk · contribs) 109.etc (talk · contribs) DeCausa (talk · contribs) GoodDay (talk · contribs) DrKay (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is over changing the opening sentence of the "Accession and coronation plans" section. Three editors favour the change: 1, 2, and 3. Two editors do not: [1, 2. The remainder of those working on the article appear to be neutral. There has been extensive discussion. However, the situation is now a basic edit-war; one party no longer engages in discussion; the others have reached the point of repeating themselves. This is within the context of a taskforce working over the past couple of months to get the article to GA status ahead of the article subject's coronation on 6 May; the dispute appears to be the one thing now preventing that from happening. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Charles III#Fourth paragraph Talk:Charles III#Accession and coronation plans, section (tangentially Talk:Charles III#Footnote's content, for lead & infobox) WP:3O How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assist with encouraging some editors to communicate with cogent arguments, show flexibility, and a willingness to compromise in order to find a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible, given the article taskforce's looming deadline. Summary of dispute by Miesianiacal The article has been the focus of a taskforce over the past couple of months aiming to get it to GA status ahead of Charles' coronation on 6 May. Within that effort, it was agreed to conduct a brief RfC on the article's first sentence, to give guidance on what to do with said sentence before the deadline of 5 May. With the outcome of that RfC becoming clearer as the taskforce's deadline approaches, editors began trying to make edits to other parts of the article body that work in conjunction with the article opening, expanding on the brief first sentence of the lede; first in the lede's fourth paragraph (not the best place, IMHO), then in the "Accession and coronation plans" section (which fits better with the purpose of the lede-body relationship, as defined by WP:LEDE). Every attempt, however, is simply reverted. Tries have been made at discussing the matter. However, as I see it, neither party opposed to the changes has presented a credible reasoning for their actions and have been relying on reverting. One is now aiming to start an RfC in the hopes that will render their preferred wording in the article inviolable until well past coronation day. This dispute is now one of the reasons GA status is being held off. Some editors are flexible and open to compromise. An injection of impartial, fresh input is required. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 109.etc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DeCausa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GoodDay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm still planning an RFC, concerning this content dispute. In the meantime, I'll wait until the current 'lead' RFC concludes. As for 'here', I'll wait & see, what the other parties input are. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DrKay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Decline: Related to the same topic as a current request for comment at Talk:Charles III#RfC on opening sentence, which follows on from another one: I'm hesitant to start an RfC with one already ongoing above, said Miesianiacal two weeks ago. See also [3]. Another RfC is planned for when that one ends[4][5][6][7]. DrKay (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Charles III 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.

Love jihad

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Srj.cooldude on 12:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Love jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Srj.cooldude (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This page is evidently biased from the first paragraph, there is an attempt to dismiss and downplay the love jihad as just a conspiracy theory and clear bigotry against hindus by stating that "Hindu women are possessions of men". The editor outrightly refuses to accept a report from Times of India stating it is not reliable. But at the same time the same page has 24 references stories from times of India. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Love_jihad#NIA(National_Investigation_Agency)_Report_on_Love_jihad_should_be_included_in_this_page. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This page should be unbiased and neutral based on facts and not allow jihadi sympathisers to vandalise the page to suite their agenda. There is an attempt to dismiss and downplay the Love jihad angle like the london grooming gangs. A lone wolf terror attack is still a terrorist act. By dismissing love jihad as just a conspiracy theory this page is being unfair to the victims of love jihad. There are cases of Nimisha fathima, who is in afghan jail after being victim of love jihad. Love jihad 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.

Aryan race

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WikiLinuz on 21:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Aryan race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WikiLinuz (talk · contribs) Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Czello (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On a series of 12 changes, I made certain improvements to the article content: I copy-edited parts of the content, added material complimenting previous concepts briefly introduced, added citations to academic dissertations, and added a cleanup tag to a paragraph that violated the original research policy. However, all of these changes were mass-reverted by an editor stating that none of these changes made any improvement to the article. It was further reverted by another involved editor for pretty much the same reason, but this editor has not discussed it on the talk page yet. I have explained in extensive detail and provided context to every diff I made, but I have not received an explanation from both the involved editors and the discussion was stonewalled. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Aryan_race#Consensus_to_restore_revision_1152101176 Talk:Aryan_race#Recent_reverts_by_Beyond_My_Ken How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe the changes I made definitely made improvements to the article, and therefore I would like to restore the changes. The discussion was stonewalled on the talk page, and it is going nowhere. So I would like someone to intervene to resolve the dispute on whether it improves the articles and therefore be restored or not. Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I will not be participating in this DR, as the issue has not yet been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC) BTW, I am not watching this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Czello Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Aryan race discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article's talk page and the involved editor has been WP:STONEWALLING and reluctant to adopt the proposed change and insisting on status quo stonewalling without a legitimate reason. --WikiLinuz {talk} 01:31, 4 May 2023 (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.

Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Chrisdevelop on 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chrisdevelop (talk · contribs) Neils51 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Capitalisation of title in short of a government commission, as laid out in the Talk Page here: Talk:Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Posted a Help request on the Talk Page, and was advised to raise a dispute here. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please refer to the opening argument I posted in the Help request on the Talk Page for Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service. I argue that the rule Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Institutions adduced by User:Neils51 undermines their argument to make 'commission' generic, and in fact states the opposite. 'The Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service' in its shorter form is 'the Royal Commission', or 'the Commission', as has been with the article since its creation, until today. Summary of dispute by Neils51 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Since this is a capitalization issue rather than an article content issue, I will suggest that the filing editor request a Third Opinion as a lighter-weight process, because a volunteer here will probably also provide a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Thank you. At the time of filing, the issue was already posted to the article talk page, and pinged. This has now been raised here. Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2023 (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.

Salvatore Babones

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mixmon on 09:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Salvatore Babones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mixmon (talk · contribs) TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is about certain lines on the page which are possibly violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies and are not properly sourced. I made some edits tomorrow which were reverted by TrangaBellam. The first issue is regarding an unsourced line regarding "conservative media". This is not mentioned in any of the cited sources and is clearly WP:OR - Have the editors who wrote this analyzed all of the reviews and concluded that "favorable reviews" (according to them) are only present in "conservative media" (Editors have decided political leanings)? The second is about an American political incident, the cited source is this. This article is about an interview with Tony Abbott about India so ideally it should be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Babones#India, not in the United States section. Please note that I am not familiar with American politics so there might be things here I'm ignorant about but this dispute is only about the application of relevant policies and guidelines. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Salvatore_Babones#recent_revert How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A neutral and experienced editor can provide opinions about the application of relevant policies and examine whether those lines are violating the policies or not. Summary of dispute by TrangaBellam Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Salvatore Babones 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.

Péter Eckstein-Kovács

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Biruitorul on 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Péter Eckstein-Kovács (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Biruitorul (talk · contribs)
• Gyalu22 (talk · contribs)
• Aristeus01 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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. In the lead section of the article, do we mention the subject’s ethnicity, or do we wait until the first words of the body (one paragraph later) to do that? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Péter Eckstein-Kovács How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please offer an opinion in line with the guideline. Summary of dispute by Gyalu22 The MOS:ETHNICITY guideline (second example description) instructs the mentioning of the person's ethnicity in the second sentence of the lead. Biruitorul and Aristeus01 reverted the change and hold that Eckstein-Kovács's ethnicity should be completely omitted from the lead despite he, for most of his career was part of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. They refused to react to my reason for changing during the whole talk page discussion. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Aristeus01 I think the conversation on the talk page says it all. Although consensus was reached, gyalu22 continues to disagree. Another opinion would be more than welcomed.--Aristeus01 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Péter Eckstein-Kovács discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Done. Biruitorul Talk 14:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Question - Why is there a hatnote about his personal name? That is, why is it necessary to distinguish the native form of his name from Western name order? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC) I think this is fairly standard practice for biographies of (ethnic) Hungarian people, all the way up to Viktor Orbán or Franz Liszt. — Biruitorul Talk 04:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) I am ready to act as the moderator. The editors should read the ground rules and indicate whether they want moderated discussion. Is the only question whether his ethnicity should be mentioned in the lede sentence? The hatnote states that the native form of his name is family name followed by given name, which is Hungarian usage. Is that in itself a reason why his ethnicity should be mentioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) Hi @Robert McClenon and thank you for joining. I agree with moderated discussion. The disagreement is only centred around the lead section. To my understanding the reason invoked for mentioning the ethnicity does not relate to name order but to the relevance of his ethnicity in his political career, plainly speaking being Hungarian he joined UDMR, a political party for Hungarian minority. My reasoning is that the reason for joining a political party or another is not a notable achievement for Wikipedia. --Aristeus01 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC) I too agree with moderation; thank you for your willingness to help. The dispute does not have to do with the hatnote. Rather, it revolves around whether the lead section (above “Biography”) should mention his ethnicity. Aristeus01 and I argue that the answer is no. This view is grounded in MOS:ETHNICITY and in the fact that all similar articles — biographies of politicians who belong to ethnic-minority parties — follow the same principle: mention citizenship and party in the lead, ethnicity in the body. — Biruitorul Talk 17:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC) I expressed doubts about the correctness of taking this dispute to noticeboard reading the informal, but if Robert McClenon doesn't hesitate starting the dispute resolution, I only thank his help in it. Following the guideline cited above by Biruitorul, it's needless to add the ethnicity of the person if it isn't relevant to his career, so this isn't only about that. In the case of Eckstein-Kovács, ethnicity does define importance. He spent most of his political career as a prominent member of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. The guideline puts its directions regarding this situation as "the second example is someone who emigrated as a child and continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country (...) we do not add ethnicity ("Jewish-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American"). These details can be introduced in the second sentence if they are of defining importance." Gyalu22 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) So in the case of Péter Eckstein-Kovács ethnicity is of defining importance for joining city council, or for becoming a deputy? Aristeus01 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC) I repeat than: he spent most of his political career as a prominent member of an exclusively Hungarian party in Romania that aims to represent the minority's interests. Are we allowed to do these side-discourses here? It was the talk page where you should've looked to engage in a non-moderated argument. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC) ”Exclusively Hungarian” is factually incorrect; they’ve had ethnic Romanian candidates in the past. — Biruitorul Talk 04:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) Please read the rules again. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the space reserved for the purpose. Is the only issue whether to list his ethnicity (Hungarian) in the lede paragraph? Two reasons have been mentioned why his ethnicity is significant, the first being his involvement in a political party for the Hungarian minority in Romania, and the second being that the native form of his name, which is noted in the hatnote, is a Hungarian name. What are the reasons for not identifying his ethnicity "up front"? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) To begin with, the hatnote is not controversial. The article’s subject is ethnic Hungarian (nobody disputes that), and it’s normal to place it there. Moving on: MOS:ETHNICITY states that “in most modern-day cases”, we put citizenship in the lead, and that ethnicity “should generally not be in the lead”. Yes, exceptions can be made, but there really isn’t a compelling case here. We mention his party in the lead (complete with the word “Hungarian” in it, so it would sort of be overkill to hammer that theme twice in the same sentence), we mention his ethnicity right off the bat in the body of the article. Is his ethnicity relevant to his notability? To some extent that’s subjective, but I think not, simply because his notability rests on the fact that he was a member of parliament. Yes, he happened to be elected for a largely ethnic Hungarian party, but he’s notable because he was in parliament, not because he’s ethnically Hungarian. — Biruitorul Talk 20:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Péter Eckstein-Kovács notability comes mostly from his work, as a politician, around minority rights. While not entirely said in the article, he spoke and acted against antisemitism, discrimination of Rroma (Romani) people, and the scarcity of rights for LGBT community. He also resigned from UDMR in 2018 citing discontent with the conservative line followed by the party. Hence, his notability is for defending human rights and minority rights in general, and not specifically Hungarian minority rights, even less so Hungarian minority political representation in Romania (since he resigned from the party). Since notability is the root for MOS:Ethnicity and his activity is beyond Hungarian minority rights, acting (officially and unofficially) on behalf of Romania, his ethnicity expressly added in the lead does not ”link”.--Aristeus01 (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) It appears that the only issue is the lede sentence. If there are any other issues, please identify them. I am asking each editor to propose what they think should be the lede sentence. Just propose the lede sentence. If you want to state why that is your preference, you may do so in the space for back-and-forth discussion. After that, I will ask each editor whether they will accept any of the other proposed lede sentences. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) Péter Eckstein-Kovács (born July 5, 1956) is a Romanian lawyer and a liberal politician. Between February 1999-November 2000 he was the Minister of Minority Affairs in Romania, and between January 2009 and September 2011 he was the President's Advisor on Minority Affairs, a position he resigned from in disagreement with the presidential stand on Roșia Montană Project. He was a member of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies for Cluj County from 1990 to 1992, a member of the Cluj-Napoca city council from 1992 to 1996, and, as a member of the Romanian Senate between 2004-2008, he was the chairman of its Committee on Legal, Disciplinary, Immune, Justifying and European Affairs. A former member of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), he resigned in 2018 citing disagreement with the party's policy on legal issues. --Aristeus01 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Péter Eckstein-Kovács (born July 5, 1956) is a Romanian lawyer and politician. Of Hungarian ethnicity, he was formerly a member of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR). He was also a member of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies for Cluj County from 1990 to 1992 and a member of the Cluj-Napoca city council from 1992 to 1996. That year, he was elected to the Romanian Senate, where he served until 2008, except for a stint as Minister-Delegate for National Minorities in the Radu Vasile cabinet (1999) and a break until he was elected again in November 2000. He and his wife have three children.<ref>Gyalu22 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) There have been two draft versions of the lede paragraph, by User:Aristeus01 and by User:Gyalu22. I am now asking each editor to state whether they can agree to each of three versions of the lede, the two that have been drafted here, and the existing version. At this point, it is not necessary to say why you will or will not accept a version. However, if you are willing to accept a lede article with minor changes, please describe the minor changes (which will be another version). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) I agree with the lede as it is currently in the article, with no modifications. The version I suggested is for future conversations, I think--Aristeus01 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC) I stick to my original proposal and I don't understand why Aristeus01 doesn't accept it. We discussed the issue at length and he got the answers he wanted. I don't see any reason for obstructing the change. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) It appears that we have an impasse as to whether to mention his Hungarian ethnicity in the lede of the article. I will ask if anyone can propose a compromise, but I am not optimistic, because it seems to be a yes-no question. An otherwise uninvolved editor has noted that both the Romanian Wikipedia and the Hungarian Wikipedia refer to his Hungarian ethnicity in their ledes. In the English Wikipedia, we are not required to follow the usage of other Wikipedias, but should consider their usages. Unless someone has some other idea or proposal, I will develop a Request for Comments and post it. Are there any other questions, or any compromise suggestions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) I don't have an idea. It looks like to me that in the back-and-forth discussion we discussed all factors to conclude this dispute. However, if Robert McClenon thinks a RfC creator can come up with some new, I don't reject getting presented with them. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Perhaps RfC would be best, I am still unconvinced the ethnicity is relevant to the notability or that it follows English Wikipedia rules.--Aristeus01 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) The draft RFC is at Talk:Péter Eckstein-Kovács/RFC. Unless there are any substantive objections or issues in the next 24 hours, I will move it to the talk page and activate it by taking out the nowiki thingies. The RFC will then run for 30 days. Are there any issues in the meantime? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) Hopefully the process won't conclude with the two Romanian users vetoing any change while continuing to refuse discussion. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Eckstein-Kovacs) The RFC is running. If there are no other questions, this dispute will be closed. User:Gyalu22 – Your last comment is hard to understand. What do you mean by vetoing change and refusing to discuss? We have been discussing.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Eckstein-Kovacs) Robert McClenon, I said that the users who oppose the edit aren't willing to engage in a proper argument. When I asked Aristeus01 to tell me what is his problem after he received answers for his doubts I was again faced with the same things, and when I repeated my answers they were again just left there. This doesn't facilitate resolving the dispute by logic. They can do that because currently it is two (Aristeus01 + Biruitorul) to one in favor of no change. However, I meant to make a last note, not an objection. RfC can make a decision at least, so I don't want its cancellation. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion (Eckstein-Kovacs) At the moment, I don't wish to add anything to the above section because I already told my reasons. Instead, I would answer the doubts raised there. So MOS:ETHNICTY says this, quoted (though only partly) by Biruitorul too: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." First, I admit that my statement that the UDMR is an "exclusively Hungarian party" is factually incorrect, Biruitorul proved that they did propose Romanian representatives in counties outside Transylvania in the past. Still, nearly all of its members are Hungarians and the party's declared objective is to validate the interests of Hungarians. Eckstein-Kovács was a prominent member of this party for most of his political career, running for president in 2011 and finishing second in the election. For me, it is clear that his ethnicity is key to his career. (He wouldn't have been in the parliament from a Hungarian party without him being Hungarian.) Yes, the lead already mentions that he was formerly a member of the UDMR, but as I said on the talk page, the lead should provide concrete information about the person, not clues. According to the related guideline, his ethnicity should be mentioned and this doesn't change on it. I didn't find anything that verifies Aristeus01's claims, but even if we assume that they are completely true, his conclusion is still incorrect. Just because Aristeus01 doesn't mention Eckstein-Kovács's actions in defending Hungarian minority rights, that doesn't mean that there weren't far more instances for that than for he defending other minority's rights. Defending the rights of other minorities is in connection with defending the rights of one specific minority anyways. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC) The information about defending minority rights is partly included in the article. If other acts, specifically in favour of Hungarian minority, made him notable I think we should mention them. From my understanding he was a founding member of UDMR, and he came second in the elections for party presidency in 2011. Other than that I could not find anything notable in relation to Hungarian minority rights. If however we find his ethnicity worth mentioning I insist we say "of Hungarian and Jewish descent" since his father was half-Jewish and provides context. Please see here. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC) It's not easy to find actions taken by him alone and not by the party. I read some specific actions, like advocating for the increased funding of Hungarian-language schools like the Sapientia University. I read the article you linked and I have to rely on its content but I would note that it's visibly very subjective. I would also note - regarding his descent - that in Jewish traditions, ethnicity originates from the mother and religion is very important. His father wasn't religious. My points I explained support mentioning his Hungarian ethnicity and don't give any reason for mentioning that he has some Jewish ancestry. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Hi @Gyalu22 Should we really leave out the part with him being advisor to the President? To me it seems like it's his most important part of his career(so far). Aristeus01 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I think "President's Advisor on Minority Affairs" is not the name of the office in the Romanian government. I guess it's the same as Presidential Adviser (from the) Department of Culture, Religion and National Minorities.[8] But I also think it's notable. I just didn't make a big change in my proposal because this conversation is about the ethnicity thing. No one raised a problem about the layout of the introduction. Nevertheless I don't support chopping the first paragraph to three like that and relocating his role in the UDMR which is very important. The part fitting in the navigation popup should contain the most important information with no precise dates or explanations. Those can be discussed later in the lead or in the article's main body. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Aristeus01, you just don't like it? You've received answers to all your doubts. Please tell me what is your problem.Gyalu22 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Please don't speak on my behalf. I never said I like it or not. "It's not easy to find actions taken by him alone and not by the party." is not a convincing answer and there is no satisfactory answer to why we should mention his Hungarian ethnicity but leave out Jewish ancestry which is easier supported for notability by his actions. And again there is no reason why his ethnicity has to be in the lede, since it is already implied by his former political affiliation and stated in the first line of the biography. For example, even without MOS:Ethnicity we do not describe Rishi Sunak as "Sunak was born in Southampton to parents of Indian descent who immigrated to Britain from East Africa in the 1960s. He is of Indian ethnicity" The fact is already understandable from the first phrase. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC) It's needless to repeat things I already reacted to. That way I also have to repeat. Firstly, an introduction is supposed to provide quick and concrete information to the reader, not clues. The statement that he was a member of the UDMR doesn't equal that he is a Hungarian. Secondly, however, that he was a member of it for most of his political career does make his ethnicity relevant. It is a Hungarian political party that did a lot of things to improve the status of this specific minority. (See Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania#Achievements.) As a prominent politician there, he is also accountable for these achievements. Thirdly, as I see MOS:ETHNICITY's instruction can't be interpreted differently. We base articles on these guidelines and policies and not on other articles, especially not on ones that are not GAs, in fact ECPs because of policy violations. Plus Rishi Sunak was never part of a Punjabi ethnic party. I don't even want such a detailed statement about his descent, only three words. Lastly, regarding his 1/4 Jewish background, I paste here what I said: I read the article you linked and I have to rely on its content but I would note that it's visibly very subjective. I would also note - regarding his descent - that in Jewish traditions, ethnicity originates from the mother and religion is very important. His father wasn't religious. My points I explained support mentioning his Hungarian ethnicity and don't give any reason for mentioning that he has some Jewish ancestry. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer information I do not have a dog in this fight; I just translate things. I thought to mention for the moderator's benefit that this gentleman's ethnicity is mentioned in the first sentence both on his Romanian Wikipedia page and Hungarian Wikipedia page. I don't know if this helps you or if it's appropriate to put this info here or on your talk page, Robert McClenon. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 13:07, 5 May 2023 (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.

Arvind Kejriwal

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nyovuu on 21:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Arvind Kejriwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kridha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Checkout discussion related to removal of criticism and controversies section:discussion#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 @Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians. He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like Public image of Narendra Modi, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha edit 1 - in which you removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022 edit 2 - in which you removed on 6 September 2022 edit 3 - in which you removed on 16 September 2022 edit 4 - in which you removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023 edit 5 - in which you remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023 edit 6 - in this you remove edit 7 in which you remove Request Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arvind_Kejriwal#Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 Discussion related to Criticism/Controversy section Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Whole criticism section shouldn't be removed.controversy with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Summary of dispute by User:Kridha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Arvind Kejriwal discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note = The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) I have done this,Thanks for letting me know 👍 Nyovuu (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor is strongly advised to register an account. There are myths about how unregistered editing improves privacy, but they are myths. Pseudonymous editing improves privacy by hiding your IP address. 16:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:Kridha hasn't edited in more than three days, since before they were notified of this filing. This case will be closed for lack of response if they do not reply that they are willing to take part in moderated discussion, and an editor who isn't editing can't take part in discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC) So can i request to undo his edit of removing section. He isn't replying in consensus. Nyovuu (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2023 (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.

Purdue University Global

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JA1776 on 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Purdue University Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JA1776 (talk · contribs) Ushistorygeek (talk · contribs) M.boli (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I believe the lead in this article includes information that is inaccurate. I also believe it gives disproportionate attention to parts of the article than would be helpful to readers. I have been working to address this for about a month through the talk page, compromise and incremental editing but one particular editor has continued to revert my edits. (In full disclosure, we probably got off on the wrong foot because I engaged in some of the same behaviors initially). Specifically, the article claims that 12.5% of Purdue Global's revenue goes to Kaplan. I have shown through citations that that only occurs in certain financial situations. I also think this is a minor point that doesn't belong in the second sentence. Moreover, Purdue Global has existed for five years and is a significantly different school than when it was a for-profit university called Kaplan. It now is a public university managed by Purdue University. That history deserves to be in the intro, but at some point it should drop lower in the lead than the first sentence. Other editors have agreed with me but the change keeps getting reverted. This matters because some people who do not like online university, have an impartial view and want to try to paint it as still being in the control of Kaplan. Both viewpoints should be in the article, but I believe the aggressive protection of the lead may be due to NPOV editing. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Purdue_University_Global#justification_for_the_continued_inclusion_lead_and_facts How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like to get some additional editors involved to provide feedback and who can help us find the right edits to tighten the lead. Purdue University Global discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has neither listed the other editors nor notified them. The filing editor should list the other editors and notify them on their talk pages within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Apologies, This has been corrected. Any advice or assistance in breaking the stalemate is appreciated. Neither of us are expert editors, so some expertise would be appreciated it. JA1776 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I have continued to try out different edits in an effort to find consensus but the changes continue to be reverted. I am not an expert editor and stand willing to receive correction if that's warranted but unlike with past disputes I've had on Wikipedia, this particular editor prefers to revert my changes rather than edit them and that makes it impossible to find consensus. If this is a case worthy of your time, I would appreciate the guidance and assistance finding a resolution. JA1776 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Purdue) I will try to mediate this dispute if User:Ushistorygeek agrees to moderated discussion. Please read the usual rules. Do not edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. However, User:Ushistorygeek has been notified of this filing, and has not replied, and has again reverted the edits by User:JA1776. I also note that another editor has joined the discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Purdue University Global. I am adding them to the list of editors and will notify them. Participation at DRN is voluntary. If Ushistorygeek does not respond, moderated discussion will be impossible. What the next steps are for JA1776 are described in the discussion failure essay, but maybe further discussion at the article talk page might be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon. Thank you for tagging me the in comment below and leaving a comment on my talk page about this discussion. I was unaware of this discussion forum until now and I welcome the opportunity to have a third party assist in moving us forward with a resolution. Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Purdue) I am new to this process so apologies if I get something wrong but I believe I am supposed to get things started here: First, the statement that "Graham Holdings is entitled to receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue" conflicts with the wording in the rest of the article and the citations I have offered such as this one. I propose that instead, we keep it consistent with how it's described in the body of the article such as "may receive 12.5% of Purdue Global's operating revenue if certain financial benchmarks are met." The wording matters because to my knowledge, the conditions to pay the full 12.5% have never occurred. Second, I do not believe the current intro gives readers an adequate synopsis of what Purdue Global is today and how it's governed by Purdue. The lede summarizes the history of its creation and relationship with Kaplan but outside one or two sentences at most, it fails to go beyond that. I suggest a paragraph summarizing what Purdue Global is today and a paragraph summarizing its creation and relationship to Kaplan. Third, all this matters because there are critics of online education who want to give readers the impression that Purdue Global is nothing more than Kaplan and the story of its start. I don't object to including that viewpoint, but balance requires space for a description of what the school looks like today and for the viewpoint of those who believe Purdue has transformed the school into an effective and mainstream, public adult-education university. I have tried to make these corrections through many attempts but feel like they have mostly been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA1776 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Purdue) I will try to mediate this dispute. Please read the usual rules again. Do not edit the article in question while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I am asking each editor to state, briefly, what parts of the article they think that there is a content dispute about. That is, what paragraphs do you want changed, or what paragraphs do you want left the same that the other editor wants changed? After we determine what parts of the article are being disputed, then we can discuss what the reasons are for the dispute. If there are any questions, please ask them at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Purdue) Generally, I am not looking to delete anything, just to to reorder and expand. I propose that the first paragraph briefly and succinctly introduce the school as being a part of the Purdue University System and that it was created by the acquisition of Kaplan University in 2018. For clarity, accuracy and balance, I would move the 12.5% sentence and one of the two references to Kaplan to another paragraph. I would put the current final sentence next and expand it to make it the second paragraph. It should describe today's Purdue Global: who leads it and the types of students it serves and the types of programs it offers. This would include a reference to its law school, which is highly unique as the oldest online law school in the country. Readers should know Purdue Global is more than its creation story. The current second and third paragraphs should come next which would make them the third and fourth paragraphs. The language would describe the partnership with Kaplan, including the 12.5% from the current first paragraph but with the added detail and citation that the 12.5% isn't a guarantee. Although I think the paragraph about the law that allowed Purdue Global to be created would be better in the history section, I am willing to compromise and keep that as the final paragraph. Editing to tag User:Ushistorygeek JA1776 (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Purdue) One editor has proposed to rework the article. The other editor, while making a very brief statement, has not replied. At this point I will temporarily waive the rule against editing the article, and advise the filing editor to make the changes that they have proposed. If the other editor does not disagree, I will close the case. If the other editor disagrees, we will resume discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Purdue) 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.

Yamam

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Bharel on 13:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Yamam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bharel (talk · contribs) Nableezy (talk · contribs) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview According to various users, government websites are not accurate sources for listing awards given by the government. The awards are also backed by secondary sources. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Yamam#Continuous_removal_of_the_awards_section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully reach an agreement regarding reliability of awards handed by a government. Summary of dispute by Nableezy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I did not say it was not accurate, I said government sources dont establish weight for inclusion. The other sources like Police One read like puff pieces and boosterism for some contest of little interest outside of trade magazines. I dont really see why we are at DRN rn but whatever. nableezy - 13:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Iskandar323 Government sources are primary sources for their own awards; not due weight has been established for this stuff in secondary sources, or, in other cases, actual unreliable sources such as police1.com were being used. The restoration of these undue awards was also being accompanied by the restoration of BLP violations. Altogether, the material in question was pretty guideline-deficient, hence its removal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Yamam 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.

Vehicle registration plates of New York

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Shim119 on 12:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vehicle registration plates of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Shim119 (talk · contribs) Explicit (talk · contribs) Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I uploaded an image to illustrate a sample plate for New York State. I even opened a WP:DRV to review and the understanding is that the original image was taken down because it didn’t have the correct fair use rationale which I corrected. However Explicit deleted again and Red-tailed hawk keeps having these deleted rather than fix the rationale. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Opened a discussion on WP:DRV specifically here How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Explain to these editors that there are numerous license plate images post the GFDL and other images like sports logo that are clearly copyrighted but are never disputed. Summary of dispute by Explicit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Red-tailed hawk Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vehicle registration plates of New York 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.

Vurg

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RoyalHeritageAlb on 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vurg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RoyalHeritageAlb (talk · contribs) Khirurg (talk · contribs) Alexikoua (talk · contribs) AlexBachmann (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One user i adding personal information about an individual deeds and achievments into an article about a region. The other (me) is commenting that only the information about the region should be in the article about the region not personal information about the individual doings. Is a dispute which at the moment 4 different users have commented so after posting it at Wikipedia:Third opinion an admin redirected us here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Vurg#Lefter Talo, Talk:Vurg#Lefter_Talo How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We are discussing what belongs and doesnt belong to an article about a region. So since different users claim different opinions we need an experienced and neutral user to show us what belongs to resolve this dispute. Summary of dispute by Khirurg Lefter Talo was an ethnic Greek individual born in the Vurg region of Albania who was active in the communist resistance during WW2 and his place of birth is now named after him. Sources describing this have been added in the article. The only reason there even is a dispute is because RoyalHeritageAlbania is extremely bothered by the mention of Talo's Greek ethnicity, and really really doesn't want it in the article. He won't say so openly, but reading between the lines in this talkpage thread [9] and looking at his edit summaries [10], it's pretty clear what he means when he says Informations about Lefter Talo dont belong here. This despite the fact that the sources in the articles mention his ethnicity (e.g. Kofos 1973). Khirurg (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RoyalHeritageAlb I wanted to bring up a concern regarding the content in this Wikipedia article about the region where this notable person was born. I noticed that some editors have added information about the person's personal information & achievements and deeds to this article. However, I believe that this information should be included in the person's own personal article, rather than in the article about the region. While it is important to acknowledge the person's connection to the region, it is not necessary to include every detail of their personal life in the article. Doing so could detract from the main focus of the article, which is the region itself. Additionally, the personal achievements and deeds of the person are more appropriate for their own personal article, where they can be more thoroughly and accurately discussed. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alexikoua Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AlexBachmann Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vurg discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Yes, I am writing to report an issue with the Vurg. I noticed that information about a notable person's (Lefter Talo) personal achievements and background ethnicity has been included in an article about the region where he was born. I believe that this information should not be included in that article and should be mentioned to the resistance leader's personal article instead. Furthermore, EVEN IF, some information about the individual could be included, I think that there are more important factors than details about his early life just as the ethnic background. However,i think these factors as well should remain on the individual's respective article, not on the region's article. A reader interested about Lefter Talo the individual should read about him on his respective article and only informations directly linked to the region should be in the article. The resistance leader should have his own page and be mentioned as a notable person in the region. But informations ABOUT him i dont think that belongs here. Thank you! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Vurg) I am ready to mediate this dispute. Please read the ground rules and agree that you will follow the rules. This is a contentious topic because it involves nationalities in Eastern Europe. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Be civil and concise. It appears that one matter of dispute is whether to include material about a particular guerilla leader. Is that correct? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Vurg) It appears that the issue is how much the Vurg article should say about Lefter Talo. The argument for minimizing what is said about him is that anything other than a passing mention of him is off topic. It appears that there is an article about a village that is named for him, but that there isn't a biographical article about Lefter Talo, the guerilla. I am asking each editor to state, concisely, their opinion on what the Vurg article should say, and their opinion about what should be said about Lefter Talo, and in what article it should be said. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Vurg) My proposal is that we should only mention him as a notable figure (the name) then to create an article about Lefter Talo the individual (i have also proposed to move the Village's article [Lefter Talo] into "Lefter Talo (Village)" on the tp here [11] to avoid confusion but no other editor has replied). Then to link that specific article to the Vurg page and anyone who is interested to read about his personal information such as the background and deeds in this case can simply click there. (I am absolutely not trying to erase the well known infomation just like the ethnic background which the other user claims that i am trying to do.) RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Even if there was a separate article for the actual Lefter Talo person, there is still not a valid reason from hiding his ethnicity from readers of the vurg article, who might not read the Lefter Talo article. There is no question that hiding this information is the other party's main goal [12] [13]. All this time wasted, walls and and walls of text (and who knows how much more), just for that. Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC) You mention all this "time wasted" but you forget that the user Alexikoua was the one who added these informations Special:MobileDiff/1149363047 and while i was saying to refer to the talk page for discussing this matter Special:MobileDiff/1149375870 we both were on our 3 revert. So you stepped in to do the revert for Alexikoua probably even to bait me reverting you again and getting blocked. So if you were ready to "win" an argument based on the number of reverts and "allies" i am ready to take whatever official rules/steps wikipedia requires to solve this dispute. So stop mentioning this "time wasted". And dont make this personal. I dont have a problem for an albanian "hero of the people" to have greek ethnic background. There are hundreds of Greek National Heroes who have Albanian/Arvanitic Background. So lets stay serious and discuss your arguments as per "Why it should/n't be here" do not discuss my intentions since we are supposed to "Comment on content, not contributors". Any detail of the individual should be part of his personal article not at Vurg. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Vurg) Discuss edits, not editors. Is there any issue about the Vurg article other than what it should say about Lefter Talo? If he is biographically notable, we should have a biographical article about him. If he is not notable, why should we mention him in the article? Will each editor please state, briefly, what information they think should be in the Vurg article about Lefter Talo, and why there should or should not be an article on Lefter Talo? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC) It appears that there is an article on the village named Lefter Talo. Naming a village for him seems to be evidence of his biographical notability. If two articles, for the man and the village, are in order, they can be disambiguated, with hatnotes to each other. Please comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Vurg) I think Lefter Talo is notable enough to have its own respective article. And should be mentioned as a notable person from the area. But informations ABOUT him either important like deeds or achievements either personal details just like the background and mother language religion etc should NOT be mentioned in the Vurg article but on the personal article which will be created about him. Lets keep Vurg only about the region. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Vurg) Is there agreement that Lefter Talo, a World War Two Resistance leader, is biographically notable and should be the subject of a biographical article? If so, is there agreement that the article on the region should only have a passing mention, linked to the biography? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Vurg) Even if there is a separate article for the individual, I don't see why cirtually nothing about him should be mentioned in the region he was from. It just seems a very strange and strict requirement. Khirurg (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Even if there would be anything to mention about the individual, would be the exact role that made the individual notable. Surely way more important than background information such as mother language ethnicity or religion. But still. Everything about him should be mentioned in his respective article not at Vurg. He was well known enough to have the name mentioned as a notable person but informations ABOUT him dont belong to an article about the region where he was born. Its like writing personal informations about Eminem on the Missouri article. This isnt even the article about Lefter Talo the village (which still should be limited to informations about the village itself not the namesake). Its an article about the whole region. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Vurg) I will ask the question again, because I think that it has been answered, but am not entirely sure. Is there agreement that we should have an article on Lefter Talo, the resistance leader? The article about the village should be disambiguated so that its name will be about the village. The reason why we should only mention the resistance leader in passing in the Vurg article is that his life is off topic with respect to the region, and would make the article a coatrack. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Vurg) Sure! That was my initial proposal and i agree! We should create an article about the leader. The villages name should be moved. And his personal information doesnt belong to Vurg article since its offtopic. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Vurg) We seem to have agreement that there should be an article on the person, Lefter Talo. If so, I will put this case on hold while the article about the person is being written. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Vurg) Sure! I already moved the village article and will do the rest very soon. Thank you! RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC) The creation of the article for Lefter Talo the individual does not in any way mean that all information about him should be wiped from other articles in the encyclopedia. I absolutely do not agree with that. Khirurg (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Vurg) This dispute is on hold while we are waiting for an article to be written on Lefter Talo, the resistance leader in World War Two. When that article is written, there will be no need for the article on Vurg to describe his career in detail, because a link to the biographical article will be sufficient, and further discussion will be off-topic, as discussed in the coatrack essay. Are there any further questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Vurg) Eighth statement by moderator (Vurg) We seemed to have agreement that there should be an article on the person, Lefter Talo. However, the article is not being written. Unless there are any further comments, I will be closing the case shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Vurg) Oh, so we should proceed in creating the article and making the edits right? I though we should have waited for other responses. I will contribute to it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalHeritageAlb (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Vurg) There doesn't seem to be any disagreement. Having a village named for a person seems to be an additional form of notability to add to what reliable sources such as historians have written. So the next step is the writing of a biographical article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) NInth statements by editors (Vurg) I created the new article of Lefter Talo the individual. Still has a lot of work to add since his biography is rich with informations so anyone is welcomed to contribute in it. Clearly i have also added the information which the other user accused me of trying to hide. So i hope from now on we wont have any misunderstandings and i hope to reach a consensus in this case on what belongs and doesn't belong to the Vurg article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalHeritageAlb (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 May 2023 (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.

Theanine

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Zefr on 14:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Theanine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Zefr (talk · contribs) Reflecktor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Reflecktor refuses to apply the only review concerning the effect of supplemental theanine on attention and other cognitive effects, defending use of primary studies (with low subject numbers) published 11-15 years ago, and ignoring WP:MEDASSESS. At Talk:Theanine, Reflecktor has not addressed the deficiencies of the primary studies, some of which had subject numbers as low as 5. Since 30 April, Reflecktor has reverted constructive changes in the article 7 times without engaging in talk page discussion that addresses the deficiencies of the original primary sources. Reflecktor uses edit-warring rather thn dispute resolution which was recommended. I have posted WikiProject talk page discussions (no feedback yet) at Physiology, Pharmacology, and Dietary Supplements. Reflecktor is defending weak, outdated primary research over the most recently published 2014 systematic review specific to the topics of concern. Reflecktor claims on the theanine talk page that there is no WP:MEDASSESS, which clearly states the heirarchy for choosing reliable sources on physiological/medical content, as applies for this dispute, is a systematic review. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk discussion specifically on the problems of small-study primary sources and preferred use of a relevant systematic review as advised by WP:SCIASSESS or WP:MEDASSESS (the content is physiological in nature, so WP:MEDRS applies). How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The primary studies in question for the content Reflecktor wishes to use are too weak to support the content, and are 11-15 years out of date. A 2014 systematic review including the prior primary research is available as a source, and a statement about its findings was provided in the article here and on the talk page here. Rather than using the review to revise the content, Reflecktor has repeatedly edit-warred to defend the primary research, with no explanations offered on the talk page and no attempts at dispute resolution. Summary of dispute by Reflecktor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Essentially what has happened was Zefr has been edit warring to remove content he dislikes from the article for about a week. He's been very reticent to engage on the talk page and when he has he's shown no intent or evidence of intent to collaborate or compromise, instead he's serial reverting for his preferred version without consensus for his recent changes. As I explained on the talk page here Zefr has completely misrepresented the study review he cited. So not only is he being disruptive but he's inserting content not supported by the very source he cites. The reliable peer-reviewed journals that are used to source the longstanding version of the article are from very reliable journals, are plentiful in number, and are very recent. There's no reason they can't be reported in the article. Reflecktor (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This user is purposefully misrepresenting the facts. Reviewers will see that I started the talk page discussion challenging weak, outdated, primary sources, and have detailed several objections to using primary studies rather than this systematic review. Rather than being collaborative, answering objections to the primary source challenges, and revising from the review, Reflecktor has a knee-jerk reaction to revert with a claim of "disruptive editing" or edit-warring. Reflecktor has made no attempts on noticeboards or other means of dispute resolution. For the record, the primary sources Reflecktor prefers are 11-15 years out of date, and are replaced now by a 9 year old review. Zefr (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Yes you started the talk page discussion but then you abandoned it for 6 days while refusing to use it, instead opting to disruptively edit without any regard for WP:CONSENSUS. For the record I've attempted to address some of your concerns by even removing sources you had a problem with as seen here. It's also not at all clear to me why 11 years is 'outdated' but 9 years is not, that's a very arbitrary line to draw. Reflecktor (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Please show us your attempts to establish consensus on the talk page or collaborate on the only review available that summarizes the state of science on the topic? The talk discussion was opened on 30 April, and this is 10 days later, when I have detailed 6 entries concerning the issues with your text and sources. Yes, 9 years is out of date, but it is the most recent source and the only review. You can end this dispute now by using the review to rewrite one sentence that summarizes its main findings on theanine. Zefr (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Theanine discussion This user should remove less content less often. I don't have time to learn everything on Theanine, however I have verified some of the sources in this edit are RS. This is a common problem. SECONDARY sources are not PRIMARY. Removing SECONDARYs based upon the objection that they are PRIMARY is strange. I think that is obvious. There are much worse problems on Wikipedia but I do find this irritating. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) This comment is unclear. Who is the user that "should remove content less often"? The purpose in this dispute is to source a systematic review as the secondary source rather than 7 primary studies. Small pilot or even randomized controlled trials with small subject numbers - as is each of the disputed sources (all having n < 50) discussed on the theanine talk page - are primary research, shown in the left pyramid of WP:MEDASSESS as inadequate unfiltered sources for medical content. Primary sources supporting vague content that is WP:UNDUE should be challenged (better if removed) until a strong encyclopedic source is provided. Zefr (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Theanine) Please read the usual ground rules. Please pay particular attention at this time to the rule that there is to be no back-and-forth discussion, because that is just going back and forth more. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Do User:Zefr and User:Reflecktor agree to moderated discussion, and to accept the rules? Comment on content, not contributors. Our objective is to improve the encyclopedia. So each editor should, in addition to agreeing to the rules, state briefly what you want to change in the article, or what you want left the same that the other editor wants to change. Focus your comments on article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Theanine) Thanks, Robert - I agree. I made this edit using the only review on the supplemental cognitive effects of theanine (by itself is of interest for the Wikipedia article): A 2014 review of human studies found that combined caffeine and L-theanine improved alertness and attention in the first 2 hours after ingestion, but when 250  mg of theanine was administered by itself, no effect on alertness was found. Reflecktor reverted that edit and has not tried to improve the content using the review. Quoting from the review Discussion: "250 mg of L-theanine was administered in isolation, no treatment effect on alertness was reported." Also quoting: "Further data containing varying doses of L-theanine administered in isolation would be necessary to more accurately determine the differential effect of L-theanine on alertness." Among all the Discussion where theanine in isolation was evaluated, there was mention of "a moderate effect on contentment", but no other no firm conclusions to state for the general encyclopedia user. I'm open to any other editor's interpretation of that review and contribution of a clear summary statement. Zefr (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Yes I agree to the rules. I want to keep the original version of the article, specifically this part 'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' which is sourced by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals. In addition to this I oppose the introduction of Zefr's content above as it misrepresents the source cited. Reflecktor (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Theanine) Above, and in the theanine article as it stands, Reflecktor cites 7 separate primary studies to state the following effects on cognition (not including mood, which has also been investigated and is assessed separately in the review): 'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster 1) simple reaction time, 2) task switching, 3) sustained attention, 4) faster numeric working memory reaction time, and 5) improved sentence verification accuracy'. (numbers are mine for organization) Firstly and significantly, this is problematic for the article because the isolated effect of theanine should be the only information included in an article on theanine. Including an effect of caffeine immeasurably disguises separate knowledge of theanine properties alone. In the Conclusion section of the review, the authors state "analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attention-enhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose", i.e., theanine stimulatory effects alone on the cognitive parameters were not found. To attempt clarification on what theanine alone does to cognitive parameters mentioned in Reflecktor's sentence, I made the following summary from the Camfield review for only the cognitive effects, providing "direct quotes" in italics from the review below. The review is not easy to read, so I invite Reflecktor and the moderator to clarify any mis-statement. 1. simple reaction time. "Since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements". RVIP = Rapid Visual Information Processing, a test of sustained attention related to working memory (defined in the review). 2. task (or attention) switching. "For L-theanine, the predicted values for effect sizes suggest that L-theanine dose has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour, with a trend toward a gradual decrease in accuracy as L-theanine dose increases." 3. sustained attention (measured by RVIP). "Since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements." 4. working memory. This parameter is included in the RVIP definition, so is the same conclusion as #3. 5. sentence verification accuracy. Not assessed in the review. Apparently, this parameter was included in Reflecktor's sentence only from a primary source, i.e., preliminary research unconfirmed by followup studies or a review, and therefore too inconclusive to include in the encyclopedia per WP:MEDASSESS. The sentence I had written into the theanine article (reverted by Reflecktor) was "A 2014 review of human studies found that combined caffeine and L-theanine improved alertness and attention in the first 2 hours after ingestion, but when 250  mg of theanine was administered by itself, no effect on alertness was found." Based on the conclusion above to avoid content that includes the combination of caffeine and theanine, I withdraw that sentence for consideration. A more accurate conclusion from the review and my summary above - specific for theanine by itself - suggested for input to the article under Research on supplement use is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." (citing the review). Zefr (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) I think that Zefr is completely misreading the source he cites. For instance the quote 'since no noticeable effects on RVIP accuracy or reaction time were observed when L-theanine was administered in isolation, these findings suggest that caffeine is most likely responsible for RVIP performance improvements' is not a part of the systematic review conclusions, but merely a summary of one primary study. The quote in question is proceeded by "In the study by Owen et al" indicating such, anybody can read the review and confirm this for themselves. So if the problem is that primary sources are not reliable (as Zefr indicates) then it should not be stated that theanine is not responsible for this effect based upon the finding of one primary study. Furthermore the review itself that Zefr cites seems to contradict what they are sourcing it for. It states in the conclusion that 'analysis of trends in predicted values suggests that the majority of the attention-enhancing effects can be attributed to caffeine dose'. I have italicized the phrase 'the majority' for to say the majority of the effects is caused by caffeine is not to say all the effects can be account for by caffeine. This seems to contradict Zefr's suggestion that this implies theanine in isolation does not cause these things. It's also worth noting that the review Zefr cites states 'a small effect size was reported in the second hour in response to 200 mg of L-theanine administered alone' and that 'For L-theanine, the predicted values for effect sizes suggest that L-theanine dose has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour'. All of this indicates that although theanine has limited effects, it does indeed have an effect and that it's not just the caffeine having an effect. So in summary the content Zefr wishes to introduce is not supported by the source they have provided. Reflecktor (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Theanine) The above statements are long. When I say to be civil and concise, I mean to be civil and concise, not to be civil at length. So I am starting over and asking each editor to state concisely what the issues are. If there are multiple sections of the article where you disagree, provide one paragraph about each of them. At this time, do not explain why you think your version is better; just tell what you want. So, identify each section of the article where there is a content dispute, and state in one paragraph what the disagreement is. We can discuss why later. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Third statements by Zefr (Theanine) The existing sentence for the article's section entitled Research on supplement use, composed by Reflecktor and supported only by 7 primary sources, states: "The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy." The parameters assessed are physiological and/or psychological in nature, and therefore fall under WP:MEDRS, which states "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content, as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information", with further MEDRS guidance here. A search of the literature shows that only one review exists, covering all the topics of the disputed sentence except "sentence verification accuracy" (unsourced). My draft statement using the review - proposed to replace the existing statement and 7 primary sources - is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC) I'm not being uncivil to state objectively that - throughout the dispute discussion at Talk:Theanine and the 9 times that Reflecktor has reverted changes in the article history - this user is tenditious, WP:TE, and appears unwilling to accept a change and use the review constructively to state what experts have published. I am prepared to begin a new report at WP:ANI. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) In keeping with your request to 'not explain why you think your version is better; just tell what you want', I'll just state very briefly what I want. I want to keep the long-standing version of the article which states 'the combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' with all of the accompanying peer-reviewed sources. Reflecktor (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Theanine) It appears that the disagreement is about whether to keep the following sentence in the article or remove it: The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy. It also appears that the reason for the disagreement is a question about whether that sentence is supported by medically reliable sources. So my first question is whether that is the main dispute, and whether there are any other content issues. My second question is whether this is a dispute about the reliability of sources. If so, we will ask at the reliable source noticeboard whether the sourcing is sufficient. If the editors agree with my assessment of what the issues are, then I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard and wait for their opinion. If there are any other issues, we will discuss them here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Yes, the highlighted sentence is problematic because 1) each topic of the 5-part claim is based on outdated primary research, 2) it addresses the combination of effects by caffeine and theanine, and therefore cannot represent an effect by theanine alone, and 3) it is not consistent with the conclusions of a more recent review. Please state these factors in your question to WP:RSN. There are no other disputed content issues. Concerning your question for RSN: the dispute is not about the reliability of individual journals cited as ref 38 here, but that a thorough, subsequent review exists and does not support the claims of the disputed sentence. the content of the disputed sentence is a 5-part health claim constructed from primary research; under WP:MEDPRI - "Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field." There is no MEDRS-quality review stating that theanine by itself has such effects. the dispute derives from whether the 7 primary sources are medically reliable sources and whether they - as preliminary research - can support the extraordinary, 5-part health claim made in the disputed sentence; WP:EXTRAORDINARY. a 2011 scientific opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (cited in the Theanine article) concluded that "a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of L-theanine from Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze (tea) and improvement of cognitive function." No review since 2011 has been published to support the disputed sentence. Zefr (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) Yes, the issue is the reliability of the sources of the highlighted sentence, but also about the text which Zefr wishes to replace it with and the source he is using to cite for it. The review he cites has been misinterpreted by said user. Reflecktor (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) So, with this comment by Reflecktor, we have an opening to resolve the dispute. Reflecktor acknowledges that a review exists on the topic, and that my proposed sentence can be revised. The proposed sentence is: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." Robert McClenon: let's take advantage of the opportunity and work with Reflecktor to state the facts from the review concerning the isolated effect of theanine on reaction time, alertness, attention, and memory. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Theanine) I will ask at least one more time. Is the article content issue about the sentence quoted above? Now I am confused about the sourcing of that sentence. Can someone explain to me? The sentence has a footnote that appears to be number 38, which in turn refers to footnotes 31 through 37. Is a source combining the analysis of the seven sources, which is secondary sourcing, which is good? Or are we combining the analysis of the seven sources, which is synthesis having the nature of original research? I will ask each editor to explain again, in one paragraph, why the questioned sentence should stay in the article, or why the questioned sentence should be removed. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Use of the 7 separate primary sources to support the disputed sentence is conspicuous WP:SYNTH by the editor who put it there. Take the view of a common, non-science, tea-drinking user of Wikipedia reading that sentence and being led to a list of 7 individual primary research sources, each of which refers to the combined effects of theanine and caffeine. What would she derive from that information concerning an individual effect of theanine and list of sources, which would all have to be read in an attempt to understand content-sources? That is unencyclopedic. That is why we require a MEDRS-quality review to summarize for the reader what the best primary sources say. The best and only review we have provides analyses which lead to the conclusion "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory." Zefr (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) Robert, I wouldn't at all agree that "there is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory". The evidence that Zefr provides for his proposal to introduce this is a systematic review which does not state this, Zefr has completely misinterpreted the content of the source, as no such statement is found there. As such this proposed introduction is a case of WP:OR. Reflecktor (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Theanine) It appears that User:Zefr and I posted at the same time, a quasi-edit-conflict. Can we agree that: "There is no evidence that theanine in isolation affects reaction time, alertness, attention or memory."? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Sixth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) Seventh statement by moderator (Theanine) We should be careful that any statements about caffeine and theanine are attributed to medically reliable sources that refer to caffeine and theanine. We should be careful that any statements about theanine without caffeine are attributed to medically reliable sources that refer to theanine. Now I am asking User:Zefr and User:Reflecktor to discuss, back-and-forth, how to word a statement that they can agree on. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Discussion between editors (Theanine) A compromise solution is to eliminate the disputed sentence and its 7 primary sources altogether, as I recommended with this edit on 29 April. We do not need to replace it with anything. Just leave it blank. Let's make this easy for the common Wikipedia user looking for information on the possible effects of theanine alone: the Theanine article section on Research on supplement use would state this only, as it exists now: "A 2020 systematic review concluded that L-theanine supplementation between 200 and 400 mg per day may help reduce stress and anxiety in people with acute stress, but there was insufficient evidence for treatment of chronic stress." - cited to PMID 31758301. That is a review source that focused on the effects of theanine alone, and came to a succinct conclusion. In the absence of any effort by the opposing editor to compose or revise a summary sentence using the Camfield review, it may be best to just use the statement by itself from the 2020 review. Zefr (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC) If the issue is primary sources then these can be replaced by systematic reviews like this one which states "After reviewing the studies, we found the combination shows favorable clinical significance in the domains of attention, memory, cognition, and hyperactivity. Overall, we conclude that the combination of L-theanine and caffeine is likely a safe and effective cognitive enhancer". Reflecktor (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) The journal Cureus is not MEDLINE-indexed, which makes it ineligible as a WP:MEDRS source and may be predatory. I stated this in an edit summary on 29 April and in the talk page discussion on 30 April. A search in PubMed for review articles on theanine yields this list showing that most of the reviews are not specific to theanine, are not published in rigorous medical journals, or are published in dubious journals suspected of predatory practices, which make them unusable for Wikipedia content. The issue from the beginning of this dispute is a sentence making a 5-part health claim based on primary sources, so we are at the right place now that you acknowledge a review is needed to represent any claim about theanine having an effect on psychological or physiological properties. As no high-quality review exists to support such a claim, I recommend that the sentence with the primary content and its 7 sources be deleted, and that this dispute discussion now be closed. Zefr (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC) You've misinterpreted WP:MEDRS, which states "Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE". In other words not being MEDLINE-indexed does not make it unreliable, it merely hints that it could perhaps be unreliable. I offered a systematic review to replace the present peer-reviewed journals as a compromise, as I previously specified. Please do not twist that to say that I've said that the present peer-reviewed journals sourcing the content are not reliable. They very much are, and there is no Wikipedia policy that says they are not. Furthermore, I find it concerning that you're so intent on ending this dispute resolution when the discussion has hardly even begun. Reflecktor (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) The Wikipedia medical community does not use sources that are not MEDLINE-indexed like Cureus because there are questions about the quality of editorial review and the potential for predatory practices where the authors pay for publication, making it ineligible for MEDLINE indexing. This is represented on WP:CITEWATCH where Cureus is listed as #26 - see the introductory Disclaimer comments about why CITEWATCH journals are dubious. Such sources are clearly ineligible for Wikipedia's medical content. Because 1) the issue is settled that primary sources representing very preliminary research cannot be used for medical content, 2) there is no more thorough assessment than the negative 2011 EFSA scientific review, and 3) Reflecktor has no quality review source to support the statement concerning the unconfirmed supposition of theanine's effects, the sentence with the primary content and its 7 sources should be deleted. Robert McClenon: can you agree that this dispute discussion is now closed? Zefr (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "The Wikipedia medical community does not use sources that are not MEDLINE-indexed" The wikipolicy WP:MEDRS indicates otherwise, as cited above. Using WP:CITEWATCH as a justification for this is an improper reading of the it. WP:CITEWATCH itself states "This list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them..... these can still be reliable (or be otherwise acceptable) in limited circumstances" so to use CITEWATCH as a rationale to oppose a source is to misunderstand it. "Because 1) the issue is settled that primary sources representing very preliminary research cannot be used for medical content" I have no idea where you got the notion that this has been 'settled' given that I have certainly not agreed with this idea and the idea has not even been discussed in any detail during this dispute resolution. It would be very premature to close this given that there has been practically zero discussion of it. "there is no more thorough assessment than the negative 2011 EFSA scientific review" The EFSA 'review' (if you can even call it that) is 12 years old and examines a measly three sources, this would be very weak grounds to cite something on, especially considering the abundance of reliable sources which disagree with this conclusion by one party based on an outdated analysis of 3 outdated sources. Not only that but it examines theanine in isolation, not theanine combined with caffeine. Reflecktor (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (Theanine) We tried back-and-forth discussion, and it did not make any progress. So we will resume the question-and-answer mode. There has been edit-warring. I will ask you to read the usual rules one more time. What part of the instruction not to edit the article, which was rule A4, didn't you understand? Also, do not forum shop, and canvassing for support from other editors is either forum shopping or canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I don't want to fail this dispute resolution. You don't want me to fail this dispute resolution either, because a common result of a failed dispute resolution is that it is reported at WP:ANI, and then the editors who caused the dispute resolution to fail are topic-banned. So don't make me fail this dispute. I will be inviting editors who have commented on or edited the article to take part in this discussion. It appears that the main issue has to do with the medical reliability of sources. Will each editor please list all of the sources that they have any questions about. We will then request opinions from the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Also, will each editor please state what they want the disputed portion of the article to say. Once again, do not provide reasons for what you want, except for questions about the reliability of sources, which we will deal with separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Please proceed with RSN as extensively discussed from the start of this DR, specifically in my statement 4. The disputed sentence and its 7 primary sources should be deleted, as was done today by a neutral editor (reverted again). I have not been part of edit-warring or canvassing on the content of the disputed sentence. My recent edits made at the theanine article were not about this disputed content, but were made to eliminate poorly-sourced misinformation on a different topic. Zefr (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC) This is certainly canvassing. Reflecktor (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) That is getting more experienced minds thinking about the issue to assure facts for the encyclopedia, and is a normal part of the process. It's called "constructive collaboration". Perhaps, you should try using it in the future. Zefr (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC) If that were the case you would have linked or even mentioned the existence of the dispute resolution, you did neither of these things. WP:INAPPNOTE states that an inappropriate course of action is 'posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner', it would be positive if you kept that in mind in the future. Reflecktor (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) I think going to RSN would be a good idea. The sentence 'The combination of theanine and caffeine has been shown to promote faster simple reaction time, task switching, sustained attention, faster numeric working memory reaction time and improved sentence verification accuracy' should be retained with all of its accompanying sources. Reflecktor (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Theanine - second comment by Invasive Spices I agree that the participants should not edit war parallel to this DR. That and the CANVAS at WT:MED make it hard to use DR. Reflecktor: You are – again – posting these very well regarded PRIMARYs without WP:SECONDARY. I – again – support this but you should provide the SECONDARYs. Experience tells me that won't solve the problem, but it will convince other editors such as Bon Courage and will accelerate RSN if this goes to RSN. Bon Courage was wrong to call these crappy but few users will verify for themselves. (Tangentially, User:Bon courage/Crying "MEDRS!" is funny because I agree, but it seems especially written for someone…who is not Reflecktor.) Invasive Spices (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Go somewhere else to quarrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. What is this? I explicitly opted out of this DR so why am I being tagged in? What has WP:CRYMEDRS go to do with it? It wasn't "especially written" for Reflektor - I had no idea Reflektor existed when I wrote it so what is being suggested here?. The problem at Theanine is not WP:CRYMEDRS; rather the opposite: trying to use rubbishy sources for human health content. Bon courage (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC) I didn't tag you and I do not refer to Reflektor. If necessary we can discuss elsewhere. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) what? what does "someone…who is not Reflecktor" mean then? Are you actually saying something or just trying to stir up trouble with vague comments? Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Theanine) I have posted an inquiry to the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the sentence in question. Are there any other issues, or should we wait for a response from RSN? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Ninth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) This secondary source states that in isolation theanine "has little effect on attention switching accuracy in the first hour and only marginal effects on accuracy in the second hour" and that when combined with caffeine, it was "found to induce increases in attention switching accuracy during both the first and second hours postdose of small-moderate effect size". Reflecktor (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Theanine) Please see the response from the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The sentence in question was seen as being supported only by primary sources and not by medically reliable secondary sources. Does this resolve this article content issue, or are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statements by Zefr (Theanine) Dispute resolved and I am finished here. Thanks for your work, Robert. Zefr (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by Reflecktor (Theanine) Back-and-forth discussion (Theanine) 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.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fanccr on 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fanccr (talk · contribs) Pbritti (talk · contribs) Hohum (talk · contribs) ZLEA (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The A-10 article has a paragraph that I believe is basically entirely flawed. It presents vague, cherry picked misinformation taken out of context, as well paraphrasing that, as far as I can tell, misrepresents the information in the source. I have brought up these concerns on the talk page, I have made three very modest attempts to correct some of the issues I have with paragraph. These have all been reverted. Sometimes vague justifications have been given for parts of the reverts, others have been done with no justification other than reverting to the old status quo with no justification. The editors that have reverted all changes refuse to justify or even discuss their positions, reverting any changes, only making ominous remarks. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#collateral_damage_problem How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There seems to be an impasse. Communications... well, I'd say they've broken down, but they never existed in the first place. Bringing this dispute to a larger audience may help the consensus building process or somehow foster communication between the parties of the dispute. Summary of dispute by Pbritti I reverted a couple times after the initial edit(s) were reverted because it was obvious that the there was disagreement on the talk page regarding the content before my involvement. I asked Fanccr to explain their edits more succinctly and clearly and to refrain from continuing what was becoming an edit war. They did not do those things. This isn't a dispute of content for me, as I can't even figure out what Fanccr is trying to say in both their article edits and talk page posts. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC) This conversation should have been left at the talk page. Fanccr is a very new editor who, in turning to dispute resolution the instant other editor(s) disagreed or asked for clarification, looks like someone here not for discussion but something else. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hohum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As far as I can see, I haven't reverted Fanccr. I gave advice that they need to make concrete edit suggestions, not ask rhetorical questions and make accusations. I have no significant opinion on the content changes, other than that need to follow wikipedia policies. Bringing the issue to the aircraft or military history wikiprojects attention might have been move useful than here. (Hohum @) 18:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ZLEA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I had reverted Fanccr because they removed the sourced information before a consensus could be established. Fanccr was right to bring up their concerns on the talk page, but when they didn’t get their way, they chose to start an edit war. Furthermore, Fanccr has failed to provide a convincing argument or even alternative sources to back up their claims that the information in question is “cherry picked misinformation taken out of context”, having only presented a few rhetorical questions, which they later answered with original research. - ZLEA T\C 19:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC) I do not believe this is a case for DRN. As Fanccr themselves said, communications "never existed in the first place." If Fanccr wants to "bring this dispute to a larger audience", they should go to the article's WikiProjects before DRN. - ZLEA T\C 01:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Thunderbolt) It is not entirely clear from some of the statements how many of the parties want moderated dispute resolution. Please read the ground rules, and then state whether you want to take part in moderated discussion. If two or more editors who disagree about content want moderated discussion, then we will have moderated discussion. Otherwise I will close this case and tell the editors to discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Thunderbolt) 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.

Animation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mitrayasna on 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mitrayasna (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is over the images that were discovered on a vase in the burnt city. A month ago, after long discussions, we agreed on how to narrate this issue on the animation page based on the sources. After a month, one of the involved users deleted the article without a new discussion and agreement on the excuse that the text was too long. I could not satisfy him by summarizing the text and an editorial war occurred. The sources clearly say so in this case: According to historian Richard Foltz, this animated vase, made in Iran, is perhaps the world's first example of animation. .The animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery. Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi is one of the most famous scientists in the history of animation. Why shouldn't his opinion on this be covered on Wikipedia? Joortje1 and SilverLocust do not have any convincing reason to delete Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi's comments. Not only the comments of Mr. Richard Foltz, who is a historian, are deleted, but the expert comments of Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi are also deleted. This has no justification, it is just a matter of taste. The same problems exist in the Early history of animation article. which has been discussed at length How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? #Before-cinematography How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you should check what the authoritative sources say and quote them in the article. My suggested text to cover this topic: An animated vase, made in eastern Iran in the late third millennium BCE, is possibly the worlds earliest example of animation or the forerunner in this field. when it is spun, the gazelle appears to leap. Animation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. The filing editor should list the other editors and notify them on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) References 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.

Sam Altman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Palm Puree on 23:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sam Altman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Palm Puree (talk · contribs) Hipal (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I edited the page to include information about Sam Altman's 3x participation in the Bilderberg group, and it was quickly reverted by Hipal. When I asked about it on the talk page, he accused me of self-promotion. I'm not affiliated with Altman or the Bilderberg Group and the language I used in my edit was neutral. Sam Altman's Bilderberg membership is relevant, is supported by external references, and Bilderberg membership is included in other BLP articles. I don't think it's fair that he can claim my edit is "most definitely self-promotion by Bilderberg Group" with impunity and use it as an excuse to power trip. I also noticed in the edit history for this page that Hipal had been reverting other users' edits. At the time I fixed it, the page stated incorrectly that "OpenAI was founded as a capped-profit company", something directly contradicted by the source (which is a blog from when OpenAI was founded, stating it is a non-profit in the first line). Hipal had been reverting two other users' attempts to correct this sentence citing "no ref indicated", "needs review to meet independent sources". I corrected the sentence myself and added an extra source (which should negate the reason he reverted the other edits), and Hipal swiftly responded by deleting the entire sentence, commenting "trim - this article is about the person". This just seems spiteful considering he had recently acted twice before (including less than 24h ago...) to preserve the sentence, while it was objectively false no less. His short response + bizarre accusations + reverts quickly cut off opportunity for discussion and I don't think he's being sincere, so I came here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sam_Altman#Bilderberg_Group_membership How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You could help by providing a third party perspective and by recommending persisting my edits. I don't think Hipal is acting in good faith but I think he would likely defer to an external authority since he seems to be a long-time editor. I mostly just want my edits to stick. Summary of dispute by Hipal Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sam Altman discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other involved editor. The filing editor should notify that editor on their talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified the other editor on their user talk page, but the other editor removed the notification with the edit summary, "Premature". Participation in DRN is voluntary. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, Talk:Sam Altman. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (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.