Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
[edit]Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor
[edit]
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Zsa Zsa Gabor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- PromQueenCarrie (talk · contribs)
- Remsense (talk · contribs)
- Aybeg (talk · contribs)
- Beshogur (talk · contribs)
- Last1in (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It's never been resolved.
Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 and 1991 autobiographies. Some additional references:
- "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
- Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
- Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
- Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
- Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
- Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.
A few editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. I brought this to the NPOV noticeboard and was stonewalled.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
In the past the dispute has gone unresolved due to mass unwillingness to even participate in discussion. In order for a firm consensus to finally be reached, many editors need to engage.
Summary of dispute by Remsense
[edit]Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor discussion
[edit]- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, please check whether there are any other editors who should also be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - If there is an issue about the reliability as a source of Ms. Gabor's autobiography, that can be asked at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has added two editors, but still has not notified any of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- All three have since been notified. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- [Please move or remove if this is not the right way to participate. My notes only apply to the Kemal Atatürk article; I have no problem with the info being included (with appropriate brevity to avoid UNDUE) in Zsa Zsa Gabor] Exclude -- As the nom notes, the argument over this possibly apocryphal dalliance has been ongoing for over a decade.
- Sourcing: Gabor's 'tell-all autobiography' is the only primary source for this event. She claims to have been deflowered by Atatürk. All secondaries are derivative of that primary. None explore the merit of the claim. Gabor get nothing more than a brief mention in the only source about Kemal Atatürk. The others are about the 'Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World' [the title of one cite]. Zsa Zsa was a proto-Kardashian, so fluff pieces are arguably useful for her article. They simply are not reasonable sources on a man who had enormous impact on the modern world.
- Substance: In what possible way does this illuminate Atatürk? What does the reader learn about an international leader and founder a modern state by discovering that he had a brief, consensual affair with a woman who famously quipped:
When asked how many husbands she had had, she used to say: "You mean other than my own?"[1]
If the claim was that Atatürk took the virginity of, say, Rock Hudson or Rin Tin Tin, this would merit a mention; a tryst with a beautiful, famously promiscuous, female human just does not. It is wonderful gossip, great tabloid news, and cool trivia for pub night, but those are not what we're building. - I didn't fight to take it out until it again hit the Talk page. Policies, guidelines and essays are clear: The fact that this happened (a debatable statement itself) is not enough to warrant inclusion per BUTITSTRUE. This alleged tryst is not important to the subject of the article. Cheers Last1in (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two parties agree, and if at least two parties disagree about article content. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
I see two related but different questions about policies and guidelines that apply to the articles. The first is whether Gabor's autobiography is a reliable source for her account of the sexual encounter with Ataturk. That question can be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This discussion will be paused if necessary to wait for an answer from RSN. The second is whether a mention of the reported affair is undue weight in the article about Ataturk.
An editor who had not originally been listed has made a statement, and so has been added to the list of parties to this dispute.
Are there any questions about policies, or about how this discussion may be conducted? If not, my questions are whether the editors agree to the ground rules, and what changes to the article are in controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm OK with you moderating, as well as taking the discussion to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.
- As for what I want to change in the articles (both Ataturk's and Gabor's), the phrasing doesn't really matter, I just want this to be acknowledged. If words like "claimed", "alleged", etc have to be used, that's fine by me. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- So tell me what does a claim that's only verified by Gabor's autobiograhpy contributes to Atatürk's relations with other 4 women that were known by everyone?
I just want this to be acknowledged
why? Are you Gabor? Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- So tell me what does a claim that's only verified by Gabor's autobiograhpy contributes to Atatürk's relations with other 4 women that were known by everyone?
Zeroth statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]First statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]It appears that there is agreement that Gabor's account stating that she had a sexual involvement with Ataturk can be included in the article on Gabor. It also appears that there is agreement that that statement should be attributed to Gabor, not in Wikivoice. Is that correct?
It appears that there is disagreement about whether Gabor's account of the affair should be mentioned at all in the article on Ataturk, both because Gabor's account should not be considered a reliable source except about herself, and because it would be undue weight. Is that correct? If so, I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.
Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- All correct. No further questions. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]Second statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]I have posted questions about the reliability of Gabor's account as a source about an affair between Gabor and Ataturk at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_Kemal_Ataturk and discuss there. We will resume discussion here after the volunteers at RSN have provided their opinions.
Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]Third statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]There have been several answers at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, that are consistent that Gabor is not a reliable source except as to the fact that she says she had a sexual encounter with Ataturk. Some of the editors have said that whether the report should be included in the biography of Ataturk is not a question of reliability but of due weight. I would like each of the editors to comment on what they think should be included in the biography of Gabor, and what if anything they think should be included in the biography of Ataturk.
Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)
[edit]References
- ^ " Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
Genocides in history (before World War I)
[edit] – Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs)
- The Banner (talk · contribs)
- Gawaon (talk · contribs)
- Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[4]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so.
Summary of dispute by The Banner
[edit]This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile.
My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away.
As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Banner talk 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The tone of the discussion is often enough to blow up a disagreement into a conflict. And the "minor penalty" is not so minor as portrait by Jonathan F1. But I repeat my opinion from above: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. The Banner talk 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Gawaon
[edit]I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area, so I'll stand by. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cdjp1
[edit]Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS.
As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature.
On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- For what little it's worth, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
|
As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Genocides in history (before World War I) discussion
[edit]After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Genocide)
[edit]I am ready to act as moderator for discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. See Be Specific at DRN. State in detail what you want to change about what is said about the opinions of historians on whether the Irish famine is considered to be genocide. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- An editor who is blocked from article space but is not blocked from talk space or project space is in good standing to participate in a discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Jonathan f1 and Cdjp1)
[edit]I agree to all the rules, and I'll try to make this brief.
The section in question contains a number of scholars who lack relevant backgrounds, and should be removed on the grounds that the theory's widely rejected by historians of Britain and Ireland. Neysa King was removed from the main Irish Famine article after myself and another editor realized she wasn't a professional academic (see talk). King nevertheless acknowledges that: '"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."'[5] Mark McGowan similarly notes: ""The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[6] Cormac O Grada: "While no academic historian continues to take the claim of genocide seriously, the issue of blame remains controversial." (p. 4 [7]). Liam Kennedy: "“In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people.."[8][9]
In addition to King (who is still cited in this article), Cdjp1 cited a couple of genocide scholars (who study famines in Africa), two lawyers with no academic background in Irish history (as noted in the article on the Great Famine, but not in this article), and the lonely voice of Robbie McVeigh. Cdjp1 needs to demonstrate that this view is held by more than a tiny minority of scholars with questionable backgrounds, otherwise we are dealing with WP:Fringe. Just to reiterate my position again: Equating the Irish Famine with genocide is a fringe pov, should not be listed as an example of a pre-WWI genocide, and the recent additions Cdjp1 made to the Great Famine article in the genocide section (including linking it to the pre-WW1 genocides article) are undue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know where to post a reply to Cdjp1, but I have to say something.
- Please read Mark McGowan's paper which explicitly argues against genocide. McGowan: "This paper argues that it is inappropriate to affix the label of genocide on English action/inaction during the period of the Great Hunger in Ireland." (p. 88[10]). The entire point of McGowan's paper was to defend the consensus pov (that it was not a genocide), yet he is cited in the article after pro-genocide content.
- McGowan's detailed paper also shows why it isn't enough to have a vaguely related background in "international law" or "famines" on continents like Africa (which is Alex de Waal's expertise). Scholars in genocide studies tend to specialize in specific areas, yet it is telling that not one of the genocide scholars cited by Cdjp1 has any background in Irish or British history. Rice and Boyle are law professors with no relevant historical background (as noted in the Irish Famine article), and Cdjp1's list is also padded with pseudo-scholars like Neysa King who isn't a professional academic of any kind (look her up).
- And finally, while Cdjp1 claims to have no personal bias, one does wonder why he's citing a source he hasn't read to defend content it explicitly rejects. My own view is that this matter is important beyond this particular issue, and goes right to the heart of how meaningful some of our core policies are if they can be circumvented so easily. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I stated what is present in the article, and I never claimed not to be biased. Please engage with what is actually written, instead of arguing about things that have not been written. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- As to McGowan, that was an error grab in the quick response I provided, he is cited to support the statement that later genocide scholars have considered it genocidal. So claiming he is cited for
pro-genocide
content, is a misreading of where he is actually used in the articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)- On what page does he say "later genocide scholars considered it genocidal"? McGowan wrote a 15 page essay (not including annotations) arguing against the genocide theory, with over 80 references. He talks about the divide between professional historians, and amateur commentators like Coogan who push these genocide theories. I believe it was you who cited McGowan with no page number except pp. 87 -104, which is the entire piece.
- You should also cross out Neysa King, who is not a professional academic; Rice and Boyle, who are law professors with no background in academic history; and Alex de Waal, who's a "specialist in famines" but specifically in Africa. There are some editors on here who think that one historian is much like another, but Irish history (and British history) is a particular specialization and someone with a background in Africa simply isn't going to have the technical or textual knowledge to cover this subject accurately. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- As to McGowan, that was an error grab in the quick response I provided, he is cited to support the statement that later genocide scholars have considered it genocidal. So claiming he is cited for
- I stated what is present in the article, and I never claimed not to be biased. Please engage with what is actually written, instead of arguing about things that have not been written. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Once again, my first point is to clarify that a claim that I added something to an article is plainly false. I did not add a link from the article on the Great Famine to the Genocides in history article. Scholars cited who argue it is a genocide in the article are as follows:
- Legal scholar Charles E. Rice is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies.
- Legal scholar Francis Boyle is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies. Boyle is a specialist in international law who has been a member of legal teams presenting cases of genocide in the ICJ.
- Historian Mcveigh, Robbie (2008) article published in the Journal of Genocide Research
- King, Neysa (2009) paper in the conference collection Re-Imaging Death and Dying
Historian McGowan, Mark G. (2017) published in the journal Genocide Studies International. Specialist in Irish Catholic history- accidentally grabbed from the references in the article.- Genocide scholar Jacobs, Steven Leonard (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in religious history, and the religious aspect of genocides.
- Genocide scholar Conley, Bridget (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in mass atrocities and memory studies.
- Anthropologist de Waal, Alex (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in famines.
As Mcveigh points out (as is explained in the entry), while statements such as McGowan's on "virtually all" are correct, many of the arguments and historians have not engaged with genocide studies, it's tools, etc., and have nearly always denounced the assessment of potential genocide, due in part to the fact they were responding to activists and not scholars.
As previously stated, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list
, while it is in the list I will work to make sure it is appropriately covered with relevant sources.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Genocide)
[edit]The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions as to whether the Great Irish Famine was genocide. The article clearly states that most scholars do not consider the famine to have been genocide, and a few scholars do consider it to be genocide. Please state concisely what, if anything, you want to change in the article. Please also state whether your opinion, if you want to change what is in the article, has to do with due weight, with the reliability of a source, or some other policy or guideline. Do not reply to the other editor. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Genocide)
[edit]List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka
[edit]
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined by the other editors. The other editors were notified of this thread four days ago but have not responded. DRN is voluntary, and they appear to be declining to take part. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, an RFC may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. One of the editors has filed a complaint at WP:ANI against the other editor. DRN does not consider any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum. Discuss conduct at WP:ANI. After the WP:ANI discussion is closed, survivors should resume discussing content at the article talk page, Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Ryan T._Anderson
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to lack of recent discussion. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in more than four months, so that the discussion on the article talk page is stale. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar
[edit]
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs)
- GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs)
- Simonm223 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria.
Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Through neutral mediation
Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney
[edit]My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.
Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Simonm223
[edit]Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar discussion
[edit]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)
[edit]I am ready to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because it involves India and so is within the scope of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. By agreeing to participate in this discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)
[edit]Hi, firstly thank you for agreeing to act as a moderator here @RobertMcClenon. This is a relatively esoteric and hyper partisan topic on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping this platform will guide us to consensus through Wikipedia policy.
I believe some context may be needed here: Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Sikh activist who lived in British Columbia, who advocated for the secession of Punjab from India, in order to create a religious state called Khalistan; the movement faced a heavy crackdown in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and many supporters of the movement moved abroad. India had accused Nijjar of heading a Khalistani militant outfit and directing violent crime in India, well before he gained mainstream attention and notoriety in Canada after his 2023 killing. The Indian media released photos of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 and Nijjar alongside another prominent Khalistani militant (who by his own account admitted to having directed killings in favour of the movement) a decade beforehand. His name was included on a "most wanted person list" the Chief Minister of Punjab gave to the Canadian Prime Minister in 2018. After his killing, Canadian authorities accused Indian government agents (and later diplomats) of having played a role in the killing, which incited a major diplomatic fallout. Canada and India have long had strained relations over the issue of the alleged harbouring of Khalistani militants, with India accusing Canada of being a refuge for them and being unwilling to crack down on Khalistan militants.
We have a section on Nijjar's Wikipedia page "Allegations of militant activities" where India's accusations against him are discussed. A substantial amount of that section was written through this Canadian Globe and Mail report, which analyzed some of the claims against him, and seemingly corroborated some of them (indicating that Nijjar was affiliated and involved in some capacity with Khalistan Tiger Force, had connections with prominent militants, close Canadian associates stating he led 5 men in weapons, GPS, target practice in the BC wilderness etc) and disputed others (stating that Canadian authorities did not believe India provided sufficient evidence to arrest Nijjar, that Indian diplomats were overzealous in labelling some of Nijjar's activism as "terrorism".)
India, for some time has alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, reportedly a gangster who absconded to Canada in 2018, accused of directing crime and murders in India in favour of the Khalistan movement. Dalla and Nijjar lived in the same city, were in the same profession (plumbing), and Dalla went to the same Sikh temple Nijjar was the head of. Arsh Dalla has himself talked to the Indian media, stating that he killed people and committed violent crimes, and was recently arrested in Ontario in connection to a violent shooting. India requested his extradition from Canada, but it supposedly was rejected.
My stance is that we should include a brief few sentences or paragraphs surrounding Dalla's alleged connection to Nijjar. This is consistent with the tone and content already in the aforementioned section, which was agreed upon between myself and GoDG back in June/July. As militancy is often conducted through concerted efforts with other like minded individuals, we should provide details of associations, if 1) Those associations were discussed or alleged in length in WP:RS and 2) if Nijjar used the association to conduct or facilitate clandestine activities, either though his own direct involvement or commands.
This is what the Globe and Mail report:
India also claims Mr. Nijjar was connected to yet another Sikh plumber from Surrey: Arshdeep Singh Gill, a 26-year-old who came to Canada from Punjab in 2018. India alleges Mr. Gill runs a criminal network that has close ties to the Khalistan cause, but Mr. Nijjar’s lawyer and friends dispute the alleged link between the pair.
Mr. Gill is the reported head of the Dalla Lakhbir gang, accused of using Canada as a base for a violent extortion ring in Punjab. He’s recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs. Wire-transfer records and WhatsApp messages filed in Indian court show Mr. Gill, alias Arsh Dalla, along with his wife, sent tens of thousands of dollars via Western Union and other money-transfer services to men India alleges are part of an extortion and weapons-smuggling network. India alleges Mr. Gill co-ordinated the attempted murder of a Hindu pandit priest from Mr. Nijjar’s village in 2021, under direction from Mr. Nijjar. One of the accused in that case told police Mr. Gill called him on WhatsApp from Canada in January, 2021, and “told us that as per the order of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, you have to kill a priest namely Kamaldeep Sharma,” according to sworn statements filed in court. The priest was accused of sexually assaulting women in the village, according to the confession. But the priest, in an interview in Punjabi, told The Globe the attempted murder, a shooting, was a dispute over land and he did not believe Mr. Nijjar was behind the attempt on his life.
Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book. The Globe was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill’s group.
These are 2 recent CTV (another prominent Canadian news organization) reports: Dalla has lived in Canada for several years. According to multiple media reports in India, he’s also a known associate of Hardeep Nijjar -- a Sikh separatist activist who was involved with the Khalistan movement which calls for an independent Sikh state. This CTV report states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's.
We also have various reliable Indian news reports which state that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. I will be citing The Hindu and The Indian Express, both of which regularly provide very well researched and comprehensive news. There is already consensus on Wikipedia that these 2 sources are reliable-The Hindu in RSP and The Indian Express in RSP.
The Hindu states
Arsh Dalla was a close aide of the then KTF chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down by unidentified assailants in the parking lot of a gurudwara in Canada’s Surrey on June 18, 2023. Subsequently, he took over as the outfit’s operations.
The Indian Express states
The Canada Police have arrested Arsh Dalla, a designated terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and a close aide of slain Khalistan separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Dalla will be produced before a local court tomorrow...The NIA had designated 27-year-old Arsh Dala as an individual terrorist in 2023. He started off as a small-time gangster in Moga, Punjab, before fleeing to Canada in 2018. There, he came in contact with Khalistan Tiger Force chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar and began collaborating with him. The Globe and Mail has described Dalla as a plumber in Surrey who frequented the Guru Nanak Darbar gurdwara, where Nijjar was the president. The paper, unable to reach him, had reported: “He’s [Dalla] recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs.” An NIA chargesheet filed in July 2023 alleges that Dalla used his connections in Punjab to form a “terrorist gang”. “He, along with Nijjar, raised funds through extortion and targeted killings of businessmen and leaders from specific communities in Punjab,” states the chargesheet.
My stance is specifically to summarize the Globe report, the CTV reports, and the last 2 sources to provide a brief explanation about Nijjar and Dalla's alleged association, something along the lines of India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A June 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report, and various Indian news outlets assert that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. Gill has denied supporting the Khalistan militancy.
BLP policy surrounding Dalla
|
|---|
|
WP:PUBLICFIGURE- Has a multitude of reliable sources reporting on the subject.
 Done as there are numerous Indian and Canadian sources reporting on him since Jan 2023.
|
Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Robert. I would like the content on "Arsh Dalla" to not be inserted into the article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. See the notice at the top of this noticeboard that says: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.DRN does not accept a dispute about a deletion discussion, because the community discusses and makes its decision in the AFD. Conducting two discussions about the same article would cause confusion and complicate the decision-making process. Continue discussion at the deletion discussion. The filing editor can request the participation of additional editors in the AFD by posting neutrally worded notices of the AFD in appropriate WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Spaceflight. The filing editor may ask questions about deletion discussions at the Teahouse. Continue discussion at the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Isles of_Scilly
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not discussed in the proper place, and as possibly pending in another forum. The filing party has also started an RFC on the question. The RFC is not neutrally worded and is being contested, but DRN does not open a case while there is an RFC open. Also, the discussion on the article talk page only began less than 12 hours ago. Previous discussion on user talk pages was useful but not sufficient to be a prerequisite for DRN. Decide whether to use a neutrally worded RFC, or DRN. If you are using a neutrally worded RFC, DRN will defer to the RFC. If you want to conduct moderated discussion at DRN, close the non-neutral RFC. In the meantime, discuss at the article talk page. Do not edit-war/ Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Berbers
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined by other editor. The other editor has deleted the notice of this case, which is a way of declining to participate, and participation is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If the other party does not discuss, see the discussion failure essay. However, the other editor is restating their position, which meets the minimum requirement of discussion. If there is an impasse, consider a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments should be neutrally worded. You may ask here for assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC (even though that is not the primary purpose of this noticeboard) or may ask at the Teahouse. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Willow Smith
[edit] – General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. I have changed the topic to Willow Smith, the article in question, but the discussion at Talk:Willow Smith has been inadequate. Continue discussion at Talk:Willow Smith. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, consider asking for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
First Chechen War
[edit] – New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is a process of discussing one source, the question is being decided whether to include it in the article or not, at the moment the dispute has reached an impasse, so we need a third party's opinion on this, please.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:First Chechen War#Grodnensky's book
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
To propose a solution that will satisfy both sides, or to resolve the right side, since the dispute has reached an impasse
Summary of dispute by lask1
[edit]First Chechen War discussion
[edit]- Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor on their user talk page. There are two alternatives to mediation that might be quicker. The first would be to request a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard. The second would be to ask the volunteers at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of a biased source. This noticeboard is still available, after proper notice is given, but you might want to consider those alternatives either first or instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)