Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | Archive 143 | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | → | Archive 150 |
Talk:Battle of Hastings
Closed without prejudice. Two of the editors have requested to resume discussion back on the article talk page. If that discussion continues for three or four more days and is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This article describes the Battle of Hastings. At present, the article contains what I believe to be a non-NPOV account of the battle, that says the battle took place at Caldbec Hill, a mile or so away from the traditional battle site at what is now Battle Abbey, on a different hill. I added text to the article briefly explaining the traditional site and explaining that it was disputed, and also tagging some possible "weasel words" (most modern historians claim ...) My contributions were referenced, but a user immediately reverted them. I have tried to engage e user in discussion, but she seems very set on her ideas. She is claiming that the information I added was not supported by references (not true!) and she seems to feel a sense of ownership on the article. I feel that there is no possibility of a consensus, and it would be good to get others involved. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on talk page. How do you think we can help? Bringing the perspectives of additional editors to help reach a consensus. Summary of dispute by EaldgythThere are two parts to the disputed edit:
Talk:Battle of Hastings#Dispute30Sep2016 discussion
First statement by moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. The ground rules are as follows. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia including in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to deal with issues about the editors. Uncivil comments or complaints about the editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Every editor must check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours. Avoid discussions about the article on the article talk page or user talk pages while discussion is in progress here, so that discussion is centralized here. Discussion elsewhere may be ignored. I do not claim any special knowledge about the battle, although I know that it was a Norman victory and effected the Norman conquest; I expect the editors to supply any relevant details. Will each editor please explain, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
|
User talk:Nathancurtis1#Reference_errors_on_4_October
Wrong forum. DRN is not the forum in which to ask why a draft is being declined. The filing party is advised to ask at the Teahouse, where he will probably be advised, first, that the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged, and, second, that the draft contains peacock language that is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I keep getting hit for advertising, I am not advertising, I am simply trying to make a biography Wikipedia page. This has a grueling and difficult process. I have asked over and over what I need to change but nobody will tell me. Before being hit for advertising it was said my references are not good enough. The person I'm helping write this page is an internationally known poet and lyricist. If I could please have some kind of help. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to chat live, edited the draft numerous times, tried to contact the people who say things are wrong. How do you think we can help? Tell me what exactly is wrong in my draft. User talk:Nathancurtis1#Reference_errors_on_4_October discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested_move_21_September_2016
Closed as not an appropriate request for this noticeboard. There has already been a Requested Move, which, like WP:RFC, is a consensus process. Discussion here is likely to be inconclusive and to result in a decision to use a Request for Move to obtain consensus. If the filing party thinks that there was an error in closing the Requested Move, they can request Move Review. This noticeboard isn't a vehicle for overriding a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Saraiki is a language. But in wikipedia Saraiki is shown as dialect. Furthermore in page of Saraiki dialect, Multani, Riastti and Thali are written as dialect of Saraiki. All source show that Jhangvi and Shahpuri are also dialect of Saraiki. So all these be written as dialects of Saraiki.Paine Ellsworth Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page, Give refernces. How do you think we can help? Saraiki be shown as language. Multani, Riasti, Shahpuri, Jhangvi and Thali be considered as dialect of Saraiki language. Summary of dispute by Paine EllsworthPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTownPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Andy M. WangPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mar4dPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SmsarmadPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Anthony AppleyardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested_move_21_September_2016 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Amman Message
Closed as inactive, without prejudice. The filing party has not notified the other editor of the filing here, and has not edited in 48 hours. The editors are asked to resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion resumes and is inconclusive, another request can be filed here for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed 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 The Amman Message includes a reference to "true Salafi thought." The meaning of this phrase -- as it now appears to me -- is not entirely clear. I first made an edit to to the link embedded in the phrase changing it from "Salafi movement" to "Salaf". My understanding is that Salaf is a noun in Arabic and Salafi is an adjective so Salafi thought would mean thought attributed to the Salaf and not Salafi movement thought. Another editor understands the world Salafi to necessarily mean Salafi movement so he reverted my edit. I reverted his edit and explained my reasoning. He reverted my edit again. My resolution to that was to remove all links since neither of us has a source. He has since reverted that edit. In an effort not to edit war I now seek mediation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried compromising but if it's either his edit or nothing. I don't know what else to do. How do you think we can help? I can't think of any other compromise but to include no source. Since that's a no starter for the other editor. You can help by suggesting other compromises. Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Amman Message discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Red Shirts_%28Southern_United_States%29#Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29
Impasse reached. A Request for Comments is the recommended next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have removed the qualifier "white supremacist" from the description of the Red Shirts, since there were black members of these groups. This is referenced in many of the documents in the "Further reading" section of the entry. I kept having my edits undone by agtx and Tom(North Shoreman), and they have ignored my presentation of proof to back up my edits. Agtx even took exception to my changing the qualifier to "Democrat", even though that is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the entry itself. I have explained my position and backed it up continuously and benn accused of breaking the rules and bias by these two, so I decided to bring the issue here for resolution, as the conversation is starting to get personal and offensive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I think I have exhausted any other steps, as these two users seem to have decided that any proof I provide to back up my request is somehow "biased". How do you think we can help? I would suggest that the qualifier "white supremacist" be removed from the entry, and is proven to be false by basic searches of historical text, even among Wikipoedia itself. I suppose that the adjective could be replaced with "Democrat" or rewritten all together. Perhaps with the sentence "The Red Shirts were paramilitary groups made up of both white and black members...". Summary of dispute by Tom(North Shoreman)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In addition to the parties listed, User:Hmains has also reverted the originating editor's edit. No reliable sources have been provided by KAvin that say that white supremacy was not the motive of the Red Shirts. The source he refers to (but fails to provide any quotes supporting his view) as well as three reviews of the source that I provided simply address the motives of why a few blacks participated in a white supremacist movement. KAvin's argument is that since some blacks participated it couldn't possibly be a white supremacist movement. This is pure synthesis and original research. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by agtxThis dispute is about whether the Red Shirts (Southern United States) should be described as a "white supremacist" group or not. Currently there are two reliable sources for that description: a Washington Post piece and a PBS documentary. Kavin's argument to the contrary has a few pieces.
Ultimately, we've got a statement that has two reliable sources backing it up. Kavin would like to remove it based on their own original research and their personal background, and to replace it with a term that undoubtedly POV and pejorative. I don't think that's the right way to go. agtx 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Red Shirts_%28Southern_United_States%29#Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the usual ground rules. Editors should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and are requested to reply to questions or requests for statements within 48 hours. (If one editor doesn't participate but others do, the case goes forward. If no one participates in 48 hours, the case is closed.) Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is important in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or criticize the editors. Do not edit the article while this case is in progress. Now: Will each editor please explain, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsagtxThe lead of the article currently describes the "Red Shirts" as white supremacist groups, citing two reliable sources specifically so stating. [3] ("He was politically allied with the 'Red Shirts,' a violent, white-supremacist cabal.") and [4] ("During Reconstruction, white supremacists formed political and social groups to promote whites and oppress blacks, and to enact laws that codified inequality. The ... Red Shirts (1875) were publically known ... [and] used violence to intimidate blacks and Republican voters."). Kavin disagrees with this description of the group. Kavin cites a book by Edmund Drago as evidence that they were not white supremacist groups. The Drago book states that there were black members of the red shirts but it does not specifically state one way or the other whether the group was a white supremacist group. According to Kavin, "The fact is that for a group to in fact be a 'white supremacist' group, then the race of ALL members must be 'white' also..that is just a FACT" However, there is no source for that statement, and it is not in the Drago book. It is either synthesis, original research, or both. The rest of Kavin's justifications for removing the statement do not involve any reliable sources. Kavin states that they are "a WBTS reenactor from South Carolina who had ancestors that fought in Hampton's Legion and were members of his Red Shirts in Sumter, Richland, and Clarendon counties after the war," so they "think [they] may just know a little about the subject." This is not a reliable source nor is it verifiable. Finally, Kavin would like to change the sentence to read "Democrat paramilitary organizations." I pointed out that the use of Democrat in this manner, as an adjective, is pejorative (and therefore carries an NPOV issue), and I noted that Democrat Party (epithet) described the issue well. Kavin disagreed but did not cite any sources to the contrary. Ultimately, this article is inaccurate if we don't describe this group as a white supremacist group, because according to reliable sources, that's what it was. Unless there are sources that state the contrary—not imply or suggest, but state—then the description ought to stay. agtx 21:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC) North ShoremanAbsent some actual reliable sources that support the originator's claim, this whole matter should be closed. The Red Shirts are part of the much larger movement to restore white supremacy that occurred throughout the rebellious south. KAvin's views are simply a neo-confederate take rejected by serious historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC) KAvinI believe that describing the Red Shirts as a "white supremacist" paramilitary group is incorrect because history shows that these groups were formed to get Democratic politicians elected and to take power away from Republicans in the post Reconstruction South. These groups were made up of people, both back and white, who saw what Republican rule under Reconstruction had done to the South, and wanted to oust them from positions of power. It had nothing to do with setting up "white supremacy", as the other two editors claim, but has to do with the people of the South's attempt at returning "self rule" by ousting Republican politicians and puppets who were still bent on "punishing" the South for the WBTS. This is covered heavily in the Drago text, and also the book Hampton and His Red Shirts: South Carolina's Deliverance in 1876, by Alfred Brockenbrough Williams. Also, the book Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era: Greenwood Milestones in African American History states "Eager to overawe and sway African American voters, the Democrats even encouraged the formation of Red Shirt clubs composed of black members."(pg.523). I maintain a group of Red Shirts entirely composed of black members could not be "white supremacist". I also point out that the Wikipedia entry itself states that the Red Shirts had one goal "the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans". The editor agtx took offence to my changing "white supremacist" to "Democrat" based on historical fact, claiming my use was pejorative. I hold that using the term "white supremacist" about a Southern political group is far more "pejorative" and much less accurate. I provided the text of Drago's work, which is referenced in the "Further reading" section of the entry, but was told that that was not good enough proof. Agtx provided two footnotes as "proof" that the claim of "white supremacy" is correct. However, I would point out that the 2 footnotes are from scources that have a heavy anti-Southern bias, and one was in fact an op ed opinion piece written about Washigton DC monuments in the wake of the Charleston Church Shootings of 2015. I take issue that a long standing historical work on the subject was snubbed in favour of biased pieces that just happen to support the side of these two editors. I suggested that the "white supremacist" qualifier be replaced with either "Democrat" or "paramilitary groups, made up of both blacks and whites", to possibly satisfy all. The harrasment continued, got nastier, so I turned it over for moderation.KAvin (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorIt appears that the area of disagreement has to do with the term "white supremacist". Is that the crux of the disagreement? It appears that there is agreement that the Red Shirts were pro-Democratic and anti-Republican and are considered to have been a paramilitary organization. Is there agreement that they sometimes engaged in violence? (I will comment that what is considered pejorative is the use of the word 'Democrat' as an adjective, because the proper adjective is 'Democratic', and that the name of the party is 'Democratic Party'. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, I will not allow the use of a non-standard pejorative adjective when there is a standard adjective, while I am the moderator. Whether the term "white supremacist is pejorative is not the issue.) Is there a reason why the presence of some freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been "white supremacist"? Didn't some African-Americans acquiesce in white domination? I will comment that two of the three above statements still contain too much commenting on contributors. Comment on content. Is "white supremacist" the key issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsKAvinYes, my problem with the article is the use of the term "white supremacist". I did not use the term "Democratic" to describe the Red Shirts, to differentiate the party they supported from the Democratic party of the 20th Century. If you feel that "Democratic paramilitary groups" is the proper terminology, that is fine with me. My intention in using "Democrat" was not in a pejorative manner on my part. Sorry for any confusion.The scources i have noted here, 2 of which are "First Generation" which is considered the "gold standard" for proof of historical subjects by historical groups, museums, and professors. These sources have, however been snubbed by these two editors for more modern interpretations, in my view, because the modern interpretations fit more with their view on what is proper, whether it is based in fact or not. The bottom line is that the Red Shirts were formed to return rule to the Democratic party and take it from the Republicans who had ruled the South with an iron fist throughout Reconstruction. They were not formed to set up "white supremacy", as the other editors contend. That is simply assumption on their parts. The First Generation documents from the 1870's however, clearly state their sole purpose as being the installation of the Democratic Party, and the ouster of the Republicans.KAvin (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC) North ShoremanUse of the term "white supremacist" is the crux of the disagreement, but the discussion has to be centered on what the reliable sources say. The Red Shirts were pro-Democratic and anti-Republican and paramilitary is a proper description. The Red Shirts often engaged in violence and intimidation. The moderator asks, "Is there a reason why the presence of some freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been 'white supremacist'"? The best answer is that I haven't seen a reliable source that says so. In fact, the three scholarly book reviews of Drago's work I provided show the exact opposite and demonstrate that Drago was putting the limited black participation into the context of a white supremacist movement. KAvin has failed to rebut these reviews. A recent biography of Hampton by Rod Andrew Jr. (a professor at Clemson) gives a nuanced view of Hampton's racial attitudes, but they were all based on "the assumption of white supremacy and/or leadership by elites (p.xiv)." There is no question that throughout the South the so-called redemption efforts achieved the goal of whites at the top and blacks at the bottom -- this is the definition of white supremacy no matter how much paternalism defenders try to claim existed. The 1876 biography listed by KAvin as a source is questionable. Much of the history of Reconstruction through the Dunning era is itself based on Lost Cause rhetoric and an acceptance of white supremacy. KAvin provides a quote from a third source that is not on point. A better source is "Religion, Gender, and the Lost Cause in South Carolina's 1876 Governor's Race: "Hampton or Hell!" by W. Scott Poole (College of Charleston) in The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 573-598. Poole speaks of Hampton's "white supremacist paternalism" and his concept of it"as both biracial and white supremacist". Similar thoughts are found in "Two Roads Tried: And One Detour" by Lewis P. Jones of Wofford College in Spartanburg in The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 206-218. Jones states that "phrases as 'white supremacy' were muted although all Democrats were committed to it." Martin Gary, the actual leader of the Red Shirts, feuded with Hampton over leadership and actually "charged Hampton with infidelity to the party and thereby not being sufficiently devoted to white supremacy." So, while KAvin can question the existing sources, there are more than enough from scholarly writings to support use of the phrase "white supremacy". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
agtx"White supremacist" is the crux of the disagreement. The Red Shirts were certainly violent and run by Democrats against Republicans, and I don't think paramilitary group is inaccurate. If we wanted to add to the first sentence that they were related to the Democratic Party, I'd have no problem with that, although I might then reword the rest of the paragraph so it didn't get too repetitive. More than sometimes, the Red Shirts often engaged in violence, specifically violence directed at blacks. I do not think that the presence of freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been white supremacist. Actually, although this is synthesis and not a good cite for a Wikipedia article, the Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era piece that Kavin cites supports that view. They encouraged Red Shirt groups composed of black members. The black members wouldn't have been in the white groups, of course, because the Red Shirts were white supremacists and opposed mixing races. The article also says that there was effectively no difference between the actions of the Red Shirts and those of the first iteration of the Ku Klux Klan, which I hope we can all agree was definitely a white supremacist group. All in all, every source I've seen supports this characterization. agtx 05:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Statement 2.5 by moderatorI forgot to state one of the usual ground rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. We have already seen that that does not work. Address your comments to the moderator and the community, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorThe only issue appears to be whether the word "white supremacist" should be used in the lede sentence as it currently is. The alternative that has been proposed is to designate the Red Shirts as "pro-Democratic", "anti-Republican", or both. Are the editors who think that the Red Shirts were white supremacist willing to accept the omission of that word from the lede, but to state in the body of the article that some historians (with reliable sources) have characterized them as white supremacist? Moving that from the lede into an attributed statement in the body seems like the most obvious compromise. Is that agreeable? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Do not reply to the statements of other editors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsNorth ShoremanThe language "some historians have characterized them as white supremacist" should not appear in this article. No historian that I am aware of denies that white supremacy applies -- using "some" minimizes what appears to be a broadly based consensus among historians. While historians of the last 60 years or so may put more emphasis on it, many (if not most) of the Dunning School and their predecessors also acknowledge the role of white supremacy -- the only difference is that the latter considered it a good thing because of their belief that blacks were not capable of participating in government on an equal basis with whites. I can't imagine how white supremacy can be eliminated from the lede. From WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." There are already nine references to white supremacy in the body of the article, but these should be expanded, especially with reference to the 1876 election. If you want some sort of compromise, it would certainly be acceptable to explain in the body of the article that the were black Red Shirts w/o including the OR that is being pushed by KAvin. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC) KAvinI think the "Pro-Democratic" qualifier is an acceptable replacement for "white supremacist", as it defines the stated goal of which these Red Shirt groups were formed. This is covered historically since their inception, even in the entry itself, so I believe that would be the best compromise. Also, I have no other issues with the entry. Thank you. Btw, I am in SC and we are getting hit by Hurricane Matthew right now, so I may lose power, but will try my best to respond promptly to the discussion, but beg a bit of patience in case I have to go "off grid", lol. Take care all.KAvin (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC) agtxI understand and respect the moderator's attempts to work towards a compromise here, but this one isn't going to work. What you've proposed 1) takes an accurate description out of the lede that lends important context to the article and 2) gives WP:UNDUE weight to a view that there are absolutely no reliable sources to support. By reducing it to "some historians" and burying the term in the article, we effectively accept the contrary view, which, again, there are no sources to support. Every source we've looked at indicates that the Red Shirts were primarily interested in making sure that whites continued to dominate Southern political life. Two specifically use the word white supremacy, not in a "some historians believe" sense, but in an unqualified sense. We've seen no sources that say "well, wait, hold on a minute, actually these groups did not believe that white people were better than black people." If the term "white supremacy" is a problem, perhaps we can describe them as "similar to the Ku Klux Klan" or "holding views similar to the Ku Klux Klan." There's a source to support that (the encyclopedia Kavin cited) and I think that conveys much the same information. Further, they're already contrasted with the Klan later in the introduction. agtx 15:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorIt appears that some editors say that the term "white supremacist" must be in the lede sentence, and that at least one editor takes issue. One editor has suggested a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan. I see two ways forward. First, some compromise wording can be found, which might be a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan, or the use of the term "pro-Democratic" in the lede, with a reference to white supremacism in the body of the article. (I will note that it is only in the second half of the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century that the term "white supremacy" has been considered negative. The phrase was used proudly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) The second possibility is a Request for Comments. Will all of the editors, first, list all possible proposed compromises, and, second, indicate whether they will agree to an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsKAvinI would be fine with replacing "white supremacist" in the lede sentence with "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Republican", or "Democratic groups made up of black and white members..." I believe that these descriptions cover the defining goal of the Red Shirts, and their opposition to Republican rule in favour of "self rule"(by Democrats) for the Southern states. To me, it clarifies that the Red Shirts were not simply formed to supress black citizens, but to prevent white or black Republicans from maintaining the control they wielded during Reconstruction. I am also in favour of having a Request for Comments if that is the way we should go. BTW, looks like we missed the worst of the hurricane where I am at, so I should be able to participate unhindered. Take care.KAvin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC) North ShoremanAnybody can file an Rfc anytime they want. I'm not sure what purpose it would serve -- I can't remember an Rfc where a consensus developed favoring an unsourced opinion over clearly sourced material. I'm not sure how you word an Rfc over an expression in the lede when the words are used throughout the article and the alternative theory, presented as the ONLY ACCEPTABLE THEORY by KAvin, isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Isn't the logical implication of KAvin's position that white supremacy be totally eliminated from the article? A better solution might be to go to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and offer the various sources offered by KAvin as reliable for the claim that white supremacy was not a goal in 1876 South Carolina or the other places and times listed in the article. The moderator has been around long enough to know that KAvin's position has no support whatsoever in wikipedia guidelines and policies -- in addition to those that I've previously directed KAvin to, his whole position turns WP:UNDUE totally on its head. I think some further effort here to allow the one-issue newby to realize the error of his ways might be in order if guided there by the moderator. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
agtxI would be ok with either "white supremacist" or "similar to the Ku Klux Klan." The solution by which we don't refer to anything of the sort in the lede and then put it in the article is unacceptable and against policy per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I haven't yet heard any other possibilities that would be acceptable. If we really need to have an RFC on this, I suppose we can. agtx 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderatorThere doesn't seem to be a compromise in the works, but I will again ask whether there is another compromise proposal. I don't see "similar to the Ku Klux Klan" as solving anything, since it is less straightforward than "white supremacist". I see that we can leave it at "white supremacist" or change it to "pro-Democratic and anti-Republican", and I don't see a middle ground. Does anyone have a middle ground? Otherwise, since the lede currently says "white supremacist", an RFC can be used as to whether to retain that or change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsagtxWith folks as firmly entrenched as they seem to be, I don't see a middle ground. agtx 15:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC) KAvinI still believe that "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Republican" would be a much more apt and correct qualifier than tagging the Red Shirts as simply being "white supremacist". As Robert has referenced, their methods of using violence to obtain their goal of Democratic self rule, by the ouster of Republican politicians and puppets, is already stated in the article many times. I believe that by labeling them as simply "white supremacist", the article does not adequately express the nuances of the political landsacpe of the post-Reconstruction South. I believe by leaving the "white supremacist" qualifier in the opening sentence, the article misleads a reader to the assumption that the Red Shirt movement was "just another Ku Klux Klan", which historically and factually, is not the case.KAvin (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC) North ShoremanOf course "Democratic" and "Republican" are mentioned in both the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph as well as in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lede. Any reader has plenty of info to realize which political parties were involved. If more "nuance" is required it should probably be pointed out that it was the Democratic Party, and not just their military arm, that was white supremacist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderatorI see that the use of the term "white supremacist" in the lede is supported by two reliable sources. Is the objection to the use of this term based on thinking that the use of the term gives undue emphasis to those sources, to the idea that the term misrepresents the sources, that the term is pejorative (although it was used proudly in the late nineteenth century), or for some other reason? The reason for the objection may help to formulate a compromise, or may be useful in formulating a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Sixth statements by editorsKAvinAs the article is written now, by describing the Red Shirts as "white supremacist", it leads the reader of the article to believe that the only goal of the Red Shirts was to supress non-whites, which is simply and historically not the case. The Red Shirts were a legal political party that worked to elect Democratic candidates. No where is it stated, in reputable primary or secondary sources, that they were simply a "white supremacist" group, other than here in this article. My objection to the "white supremacy" phrase being used in the lede sentence has always been my issue with this, as it oversimplifies a political group who was trying to rebuild its communities and return to self rule after federal occupation under Reconstruction. This was their stated goal. As I have stated before, changing the phrase "white supremacist" to "Democratic" would clear things up in the opening sentence. If the remainder of the article references "white supremacy", that would be correct in my opinion. KAvin (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) North ShoremanIf sourcing is a problem, I've listed four more scholarly ones at my second statement above and can easily come up with more. There are so many more problems with the article than this single phrase that perhaps the better course is to start rewriting and restructuring the article with more attention to the background leading to the formation of Red Shirts and the sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC) agtxFrom my perspective, two reliable sources support the use of the phrase and zero reliable sources counsel against it. agtx 17:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderatorWe appear to be at an impasse. I will be closing this thread within 24 hours. If anyone wants help in formulating a neutral RFC, you may make a request to that effect here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Seventh statements by editorsKAvinSo, if no one else chimes in, the incorrect qualifer of "white supremacist" stays, in lieu of the more correct qualifier of "Democratc"?? Is that how this "works", Robert? If so, I would like to form an independant RFC to see what others outside of us three think about the change I have proposed.KAvin (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
|
Closed. Although the filing of this request is malformed, it appears that the issue is with a deletion discussion. The filing party has a conflict of interest as the subject of the article, but that is not important. The proper review is at deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User: Lemongirl942 and User: Black Kite seemed to have collaborated together in deleting the article for Robert Niter. Lemongirl942 violated Wikipedia's standards by initially removing content from the article to impair notability (competition history, published book content, stats). The editor then placed "5" tags on the article and exercised "overtagging" which was clearly a violation of Wikipedia. The editor made accusations of paid services without any evidence. The user: Lemongirl942 then expressed that they are almost certain that the article was paid service on User: Black Kite talk page. User Black Kite also updated the 2nd nomination Afd as "delete" when it was "keep" although it clearly reads "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Niter_(2nd_nomination) Both editors were clearly in violation of Wikipedia's standards and I am requesting a higher echelon of resolution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried utilizing Wikipedia's guidelines in all cases to educate editors on processes. However, the editors seemed to act solely off opinions, hidden agendas or unsupportive claims that led up to deletion for the page: Robert Niter How do you think we can help? Request restoration of the article in question for Robert Niter. Educate wiki editors of proper guidelines in remaining unbiased, non opinionated and adhere to Wikipedia's policies in the performance of any action on Wikipedia. Request page block for editors Black Kite and Lemongirl942 for article Robert Niter. Summary of dispute by Rniterjr; Black Kite; Lemongirl942Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert Niter&action=edit&redlink=1 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:List of_Republicans_opposing_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Notability_for_Trump_Surrogates
Closed as stale. There has been no discussion at the talk page for 5 days. If discussion at the talk page resumes and is inconclusive, a new request for moderated discussion can be filed here. Editors are advised not to edit-war and are asked to discuss disputes on the article talk page. Disruptive editing may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Editors keep section blanking contributions by other editors without consensus or discussion Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried discussing this on the talk page, individuals seem to not want to participate and just continue section blanking How do you think we can help? As its on a politcal topic I believe having third parties review and discuss can help. Summary of dispute by TherequiembellisherePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm just going to re-post what I put on the talk, if that's alright. These are low-to-mid-level campaign staff who don't meet a shred of the notability criteria for their own pages beyond this one event, and inclusion is not a two-way street. They have to be notable in their own right. They aren't. When high-level staff (Kushner, Manafort, Lewandowski, Conaway's "unless...") and/or surrogates (Giulliani, Huckabee, Priebus, Pence, Hastert) disavow him, we'll have to negotiate where they go. But not if they should be here, because these figures obviously would be. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AndyAndersonThe page, from its inception, has had a notability requirement that individuals have their own Wikipedia entry (which is also in use by similar pages such as the list of Trump endorsers). Zlassiter ignored this requirement and so his entries were reversed and an explanation provided. He immediately reversed these reversals rather than bringing it to the Talk page for discussion. The only section that was removed was the one that had no listings after the non-notable individuals were removed (they actually disappear with the reversal of the first edit in the series). Theoallen1 finally brought a request to change the policy to the Talk page only 13 hours ago. A discussion is ongoing there, contrary to Zlassiter’s statement “individuals seem to not want to participate”, but has not reached a conclusion. Nevertheless, Zlassiter doesn’t seem willing to wait, they continue to try to add these same entries to the page and has now started this premature dispute resolution request. — Andy Anderson 06:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Theoallen1I fully agree with this requirement, but I was specifically referring to a Trump surrogate. If a person who is paid by Donald Trump for President renounces him or is on an advisory counsel to Trump (such as the 13 person economic team or the Hispanic Advisory Counsel). I concur in this expansion.
Talk:List of_Republicans_opposing_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Notability_for_Trump_Surrogates discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Dartford Crossing#Content_dispute
Closed. The filing party has been indefinitely blocked. as a sockpuppet The other two parties do not appear to have a dispute. Any discussion of the article can go back to the article talk page. If discussion between remaining editors is inconclusive, another request for dispute resolution can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article has numerous issues as I have detailed, but the person claiming to be the primary author disagrees, and is adamant that the article has had a proper, thorough review. They claim that as these issues were not raised, they must not exist. In at least one case, I have found that to be untrue - it seems more likely to me that the primary author has simply ground opposers down until they acquiesced, throwing them a bone of compromise by agreeing to trivial changes that nobody would realistically object to, and I suspect that is what he is trying to do now. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking to them, including through making reference to the nature of Wikipedia, other Wikipedia articles, and basic common sense. How do you think we can help? Provide an unbiased opinion on the issues of substance, in an environemnt that accepts that primary authors have no more claim over the content of articles than people who are new to them, and that accepts that just because an issue has seemingly not been noticed by others, does not mean it does not exist and cannot be discussed with the aim of extracting explicit support for a position. Summary of dispute by Ritchie333Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The filer, Clarion Collar has been blocked indefinitely by a checkuser. In terms of content, I think Martin said the organisation was a matter of views, but there's not really any consensus to change the status quo from anyone else, so we can probably close this. If somebody wants to pick out any genuinely salient points from CC about content, I'm perfectly amenable to listen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Dartford Crossing#Content_dispute discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note: Hello, before I can review your case, please provide summary statements to your file. WebCite (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC) If you're talking to me, I was under the impression my summary was part of the original submission - "Dispute Overview" is my summary, no? Clarion Collar (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
|
Ivo Andri%C4%87
Premature. There has been editing and reverting of the article, but there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to discussion here. The editors are advised to discuss their content issues on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The users Zoupan,23 editor continuously remove sourced input from the article on Ivo Andric. He thinks that the input aims at defaming the biography, while I am simply providing a direct phrasing of multiple reliable sources, including manuscripts from the very same person of the article. Ivo Andric has expressed nationalistic views and openly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians, in his work Draft on Albania, 1939, while he was an ambassador. There is not mentioning about it currently in the article. I edit the fact together with multiple reliable sources backing up the input. 31.18.254.94 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Informed the editors, but got no useful response. They did not discuss the matter, neither provided sources to back up their stance, but simply accused me of trying to defame the biography. How do you think we can help? You can have a look and try to verify the sources. Summary of dispute by ZoupanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The IP pops up from nowhere and ref-bombs the introduction with defamatory content "Andrić was known for his ultra nationalistic views, in particular as a public supporter of the forceful ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians", sourced from Albanian or pro-Albanian refs, bare links. I have not find any reliable source claiming that Andrić was an "ultra-nationalist". Andrić did indeed, in a 1939 text, propose the partition of northern Albania in order to further secure Yugoslavia from the Axis, and then mentioned the possible deportation of Kosovo Muslim Albanians to Turkey (a strategic move done throughout the Balkans with Ottoman orchestrating). Due or undue, the article is GA, and the user was asked to start a discussion at the talk page, but continued to edit-war.--Zoupan 22:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 23 editorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ivo Andri%C4%87 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation
General close for two reasons. First, at least one of the editors is willing to discuss on the article talk page. Second, the issues may be too complicated for this noticeboard. The editors should go back to the talk page. If discussions are inconclusive, they may request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Talk page discussion Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview 2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation is a highly contentious topic with claims and counterclaims by India and Pakistan. Their respective national media have been toeing their government line and there is a huge amount of propaganda and misinformation on both sides. To avoid the problems of these souces, I polished a section titled the "Surgical strike" claim [5], which was right at the top of the article, using reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. Vice regent moved the section down and reorganised it [6] so that pretty much none of the original content remains in it. Telling him that he does not have the consensus for this reorganisation did not help. It appears that he does not see the value of using WP:THIRDPARTY sources (point, counterpoint). Note added: The issue has not been discussed enough on the talk page, going by normal standards. Since Vice regent hasn't addressed any of the points made here and keeps defending his edits, there is no choice but to come to dispute resolution. Further note: Vice regent finally states (for the firs time) that he believes in WP:THIRDPARTY sources. If he accepts to reinstate the "Surgical strikes" claim section sourced to THIRDPARTY sources, we can close this case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC) After several days, Vice regent made no response to the above question. So I am going to reinstate the deleted content. Let us hold the case for a couple of days to see what happens. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion, one revert, and a ping to RegentsPark, the admin enforcing editing restrictions on the page. How do you think we can help? Decide whether the original section should remain in place or whether it is unnecessary.
Summary of dispute by Vice regentI'm kinda surprised to see our discussion here. I actually do not feel that the "dispute" has been sufficiently discussed on the talk page. I know that Kautilya was unhappy about my edits, but he failed to specify what exactly he didn't like. He said I removed sourced content. So I asked him to specify the exact content I had removed. I didn't get a response. I asked him again. This time he responded, but again failed to specify exactly which sentences I had removed. So I went ahead and posted a detailed comparison of the two versions, asking once again to specify what is the sourced content that I allegedly removed. Once Kautilya specifies what he believes is the sourced content I removed, we have three options: 1) I apologize for my mistake and restore that content. 2) I successfully convince Kautilya that that content was removed appropriately. 3) We have a genuine dispute for which we need a resolution. But at this point, I feel that posting here is pre-mature. (Oh, and the "overview" given above is pretty biased. I agree that third party sources are good and have used them in the article.)VR talk 05:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. The purpose of this discussion is as an alternative to edit-warring. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to talk about the other editors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion or respond to the other editor here. That has already been tried, and has not been productive. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. I expect every editor to check on this discussion at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions within 48 hours. I do not claim any special knowledge about the conflict, and I expect the participants to provide me with any required verifiable background knowledge. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Also, a reminder: The editors are reminded that disruptive editing is subject to discretionary sanctions. This should not be a problem if you are civil and you comment on content rather than contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsKautilya3I understand that we are not to discuss the process or conduct, just the merits/demerits of the issue, viz., whether the "Surgical strikes" claim section should remain in place. But one bit of the process is important, viz., that the section was present, essentially from the beginning, e.g., in this version on 30 september. Vice regent removed it on 5 October. The justification given on the talk page is: The Timeline section, an idea of Vice regent's, describes various media reports culled from unofficial sources. By no means can they be called what "India and Pakistan both claim happened". This section is peppered throughout with phrases like " As far as I am concerned, the "Surgical strikes" claim section is information. The Timeline section is misinformation, or at best unconfirmed reports. The two should not be mixed together. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Vice regentI believe the dispute is over these two versions: Kautilya's preferred version, My preferred Version. My main reason for preferring my version are:
I have delibertely not responded to what Kautilya said above because I was asked not to. VR talk 20:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorOkay. Both statements are long. Let's get this shorter. It appears that the primary issue is the wording of the lede paragraph. Are there any other areas? Will each editor please provide me with their proposed wording of the lede paragraph, below? No diffs, just the actual proposed wording, preferably in some sort of a box. If there are any other issues, please state what they are. For now, don't tell me why you think your version is better, just what you want it to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsKautilya3No, there are no issues with the lead paragraph at the moment. The issues are with the section "Surgical strikes" claim. The version you find on the article at the moment is almost my preferred version. With minor clean-up I reproduce it below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Surgical strike" claim
Vice regentThe issue is not with the lede paragraph, but the rest of the article. As I mentioned in my first statement, my issue is with how the article is organized as a whole. In the version I prefer, this is how the Timeline and Surgical strikes section go (with Timeline coming first). Timeline
"Surgical strike" claim
Third statement by moderatorI realize that what the editors provided is what I had asked, which is their preferred versions of the body of the article. Unfortunately, working out anything as long as the whole body of the article is beyond the usual limits of this noticeboard. I think that this dispute would work better in [WP:RFM|formal mediation]], which may take months. Does either editor have a proposal for an easy-to-describe way to resolve this quickly? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsVice regentKautilya and I have had many disputes before (and are currently having some disputes now). Each time we discuss on the talk page. Often the disputes are resolved through talk page discussion. I actually don't see why this dispute can't be resolved through talk page discussion. And no, we did not have a talk page discussion before coming to WP:DRN. We barely started discussing things when I was abruptly redirected to this DRN.VR talk 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
|
User talk:Kleuske#Edit_to_.5BBangladeshi_Names.5D
It isn't entirely clear what the issue is, but it appears that the registered editor has been reverting unsourced edits, and that the unregistered editor is soapboxing for demands such as an apology and to right great wrongs that are beyond the scope of this noticeboard and probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The unregistered editor is advised to read What Wikipedia is not; if they want advice on a content issue, they may ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The editor has started resorting to marginalization, name-calling and otherwise derogatory value-judgements of a real scenario, with statements such as "nationalistic nonsense". I am Bengali. This article is important to me. I have facts and a verifiable passport for the name disambiguation aspect and my grandfather's brother's history of our family - I just don't have access to the written copy - there is only one and it is not electronic. But there has been much else lost in the way of verifiable paper records in 1971 due to the book burnings and record burnings and the general slaughter during that war. Bangladesh did not join the internet until much more recently, so electronic records or "other sources" from a 3rd world nation are few and far between. I want to have the editor stop minimizing the historical impact of the many lives lost in 1971 - nationalistic nonsense is lost on me because for Bengali's there are only 3 things that are important - language, family and music - so this political attack is beyond me. AND I want recourse to how to add important information about Bengalis to the correct page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_name Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked for information. I have been verbally beaten down for even stating my case and just given "sayso" rhetoric. And I have not deserved the "nationalistic nonsense" slur. I survived the war. How do you think we can help? Get me an apology for marginalizing the suffering of real individuals as nationalistic nonsense. Get me a way to have the information added with whatever vetting process is required. Summary of dispute by KleuskePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Kleuske#Edit_to_.5BBangladeshi_Names.5D discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The editor is not providing any recourse in the scenario presented: limited access to records, long oral tradition, severe weather related data loss. He is simply sticking to "I can't find a record of it, so it must be untrue". Book burnings and flooding are massive data loss. How do holocaust victims and victims of other natural disasters get their information into an encyclopedia? There has to be a process other than "I can't find a publication" - even an encyclopedia has to have a way to vet information other than written form. Do we need to create a separate encyclopedia for the history of Bangladesh so that Wikipedia will accept it? 68.49.4.6 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam
|
Iranian rial
Premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is a prerequisite to moderated dispute resolution here. The editors are advised to discuss on the article talk page. If that discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be filed for consideration here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
It is worth mentioning that the user:Pahlevun does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty) (en-0). I have deep respect for the Iranian people and people of Iranian descent. However, I can't help but think that user:Pahlevun, an Iranian, is deliberately adding Saudi Arabia (a regional rival and foe of the Iranian regime) to the list of users of the Iranian rial as part of a wider propaganda effort. I have tried communicating with user:Pahlevun, even though his talk page, but to no avail. My hope is that Wikipedia be a reliable source of accurate information, free from propaganda and deliberate distortions for geopolitical ends. This is part of the reason I decided to contribute, however little, to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted a comment to the talk page of user:Pahlevun, notifying and explaining the edit to the article and providing him the references and facts. He dismissed it completely and removed my edit. He did not even attempt to address my reasoning and was very uncooperative. How do you think we can help? I think we need neutral editors to form and join a group discussion that would include Pahlevun, ה-זפר , and myself. In this discussion, each party would offer their input and explain their views. In the end of the discussion, the group would collectively decide how to move forward, with the goal of Wikipedia being a reliable source of accurate information. Summary of dispute by PahlevunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ה-זפרPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Iranian rial discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:German Brazilians#Figures_of_German_Brazilian
Closed as abandoned by filing party. The filing party did not respond to a question as to whether they wanted moderated dispute resolution. It appears that there is no serious challenge to the 12 million figure at this time, which does not rule out further discussion on the article talk page. If there is further discussion on the article talk page, but it is inconclusive, a new thread can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User:Thomas.W added two non-Brazilian sources that claimed that the 2000 Brazilian censuses found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. He removed the previous source that provided a different figure, 5 million. The point is: the 2000 Brazilian census DID NOT ask about German ancestry. This theory started in Wikipedia, by IP numbers. I have been reverting them for years, but their theory about the census was spread to other websites and is not back to the article disguised as "reliable source". I asked User:Thomas.W to show where in the Brazilian census they asked about German ancestry, but he said he would not look for it. Me and another Brazilian user, User:Grenzer22, warned that the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry and then those sources are wrong. However, User:Thomas.W and User:Iryna Harpy, who happens to be an administrator, are ignoring our advices and are doing everything to keep the wrong figure in the article. I have included three other reliable (Brazilian) sources that found figures between 3.6 and 7.2 million Brazilians of German descent, including one from Simon Schwartzman, who was the president of IBGE, responsable for the Brazilian census (he found the 3.6% figure). However, User:Iryna Harpy removed all my sources, based on illogical and silly arguments. Another user, User:Roger 8 Roger, also asked both Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W to show us where in the Brazilian census we can find the German figure, but they said they would not do it. They are also using a touristic propaganda published in London as a "source" for the 12 million figure. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss the problem, but Iryna Harpy is using "rules" of Wikipedia to escape from any rational discussion. If the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry, then the sources are wrong. Period. How do you think we can help? We need to remove that wrong figure and have a rational discussion. The Brazilian census of 2000 did not ask about German ancestry. If Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W think it did, they have to shows where. If they cannot show us, we must remove the figure. We cannot admit wrong information to be spread. Summary of dispute by Roger 8 RogerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think the dispute is about the reliability of the 'reliable' sources. I think xuxo has confused matters by giving insisting that, from his personal experience (not good enough) the RS material is wrong, and I think others have incorrectly assumed that this is the dispute (whether xuxo's personal statements can trump RS). If the reliable source material being used (and there is a lot of it) can be shown to be wrong then it is not reliable source material and so would not be protected by WP rules. For example, it is amusing I think that Iryna Harpy is surprised that i do not necessarily accept a print out that has the Brazilian govt's stamp on it. Does that mean that anything put on WP from the Iraqi govt should be taken as gospel? I suggest a solution to this dispute is to find the 12m Germans info from the 2000 census and if it cannot be found then either remove the claim from WP or leave it in place with a clear statement that the 12m figure is not based on verifiable source material.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) @Robert McClenon. I am concerned the two sides here are not discussing the same issue. One side is saying that the citations claiming 12m Germans are RSs and so must stand unless trumped by better RSs (which they claim have not been provided). They claim this is all in line with the WP way of doing things and they know because they are 'experienced'. The other side, who are 'inexperienced' in the ways of WP, are saying that is irrelevant because the RS's first used have made a mistake and the 12m figure does not exist. Even RS's make mistakes. Therefore the RSs (12m figure) do not need to be trumped because there is nothing to trump. Sometimes a rigid and blinkered approach to dispute resolution can lead to absurdities. This is not a matter of getting better evidence, it's a matter of whether the RSs used have, in this case, made a mistake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grenzer22The sources stating the 12 million figure claim the 2000 Brazilian census would have made questions on German ancestry, which is not true.Grenzer22 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Iryna HarpyThe discussion can be found on the article's talk page, so I'm not going through this again. We seem to have a couple of editors who have difficulties in understanding what multiple RS means. Given that I haven't encountered any material accusing the Brazilian government of lying about their estimates of ethnic group numbers, and that there aren't challenges to their figures by outraged statisticians, or other governments accusing the Brazilian government of being a part of yet another incarnation of the 'axis of evil', I'm not prepared to discard the well referenced use of 12 million based on JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. As an inexperienced editor, I think Roger 8 Roger has gotten a little overenthusiastic about the heavy burden of editing. There are ample subjects over which consensus needs to be found, and sources carefully parsed... and this is not one of them. I've never had any bad interactions with Xuxo, so I truly don't understand why the stick isn't being dropped. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Thomas.WXuxo has been repeatedly told that we go by what reliable sources say, nothing else, and that his claims about personally knowing that the Brazilian census of 2000 didn't ask questions about ancestry, which is all he has to refute what the reliable sources say, isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content (which he has done on more articles than just German Brazilians, showing that he's out on a crusade here...). But he refuses to listen. As for the rest of his claims here, such as " but they said they would not do it", it's a load of baloney, and very far from the truth. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:German Brazilians#Figures_of_German_Brazilian discussion
Yes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible new moderatorThis is an awkward situation. I see that some editors want to discuss the figure at length and some don't. I also see that some editors thought that the previous volunteer had inadequate experience. I won't waste time by asking what the sources are. I will start by asking a few very basic questions. First, is the main issue whether the figure of 12 million, in the article, should be used? If so, why, in one sentence; if not, why not, in one sentence? Second, does each editor want to have moderated discussion? Whether we have moderated discussion at this point will depend on whether at least two editors with different opinions on the article want to have moderated discussion. Third, will each editor agree to have the matter of the number of German Brazilians decided by a Request for Comments? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other's comments, only to my questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Statements by editorsGiven that the filing OP hasn't commented since requesting a DRN, and that there has been nothing brought to the table to refute official figures given by the Brazilian government, nor any sources disputing their stats, I don't see any dispute here. The 12 million figure is reliably sourced and verifiable. I am compelled to stand by the figure according to WP:NOR, and not to be swayed by JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Sans the filing OP, there is nothing to discuss. I'm sorry, but this has gone very, very stale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
|
James O'Keefe
Premature. The efforts by the filing unregistered editor to discuss on the article talk page have been minimal (and the efforts by the filing unregistered editor to discuss constructively have been null). The filing party has not notified the other party of this filing. The editors are advised to try to discuss constructively on the article talk page. Also, the filing unregistered editor is strongly cautioned that threats by an unregistered editor, such as to edit the article down to one paragraph, are not productive because they will almost certainly result in semi-protection of the article. As a result, the filing unregistered editor is advised that there are advantages and no disadvantages to creating an account. If discussion takes place and is inconclusive, this case can be refiled here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This entire article is shockingly biased and totally negative towards the subject. It has been hacked by someone who obviously does not like the subject nor his actions. It needs to be written in a neutral & balanced tone. Have you tried to resolve this previously? On the Talk page, I stated the obvious that the article is blatantly one-sided & negative and needs serious editing for balance. I was met with resistance by User:Volunteer Marek. I warned the individual that if the edits weren't made I would edit the article down to one paragraph. I have since become aware of this option for dispute mediation and would rather solve the issue here than make a giant edit. But honestly, be non-partisan and look at the article: It's a hatchet job from top to bottom How do you think we can help? Read the entire article and then weigh in on here as to whether or not you think it honors the standards of Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree it needs serious editing. If Volunteer Marek interferes with the revised article, then the article needs locked and tagged as being Disputed, and said Volunteer needs to be blocked. Summary of dispute by Volunteer MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
James O'Keefe discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)
Closed as wrong forum. This is not the venue to discuss an ongoing Articles for Deletion discussion. However, some advice will be given. Read Talk Page Guidelines, which states that editing of talk page comments should be done carefully, with great care taken not to change the meaning and so that there is no risk of changing the understanding of what was said. In view of the contentious nature of AFD discussions, it is especially important that any editing or refactoring be done only with great caution, and if there is any question whatever as to whether editing was appropriate, it probably was unwise. In this case, simply, since there is an issue, don't edit the discussion. Disruptive editing of AFD discussions can be reported at WP:ANI. The best way to avoid having editing of an AFD discussion reported at WP:ANI is to avoid editing the AFD discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Disagreement regarding AfD debate protocol. Please see location of dispute for complete dispute description. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Reviewed WP:AFDFORMAT. Submitted to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for guidance and in the hopes of avoiding escalation. How do you think we can help? Guidance regarding protocol and intervention if necessary. Summary of dispute by TiptoethrutheminefieldPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Ibn al-Haytham#Removing_of_sourced_material
Apparently abandoned by parties. Neither editor has responded within 72 hours after the case was opened and editors were given 48 hours to respond. If there is any continuing dispute over the article content, discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview user:Kansas Bear removes sourced material from Alhazen article, because he says only the historians of Islamic studies are qualified to comment on ethnicity of Alhazen, and not other historians. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss the issue on article's talk page. How do you think we can help? There are two options:
If a third party tells us which of the above are complied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that would be helpful. Summary of dispute by Kansas BearWell, I am amazed how quickly a "new user" that has been here 6 days figured out how to post to "dispute resolution" and how to post 3rr warnings. Scienceis is using non-specialized/non-historical sources to push Alhazen was "Persian".[7] I went into detail how his sources were not reliable for Islamic science/Islamic history, which he categorically ignored. Oddly, Scienceis did not even try to give an explanation as to why these sources should be used. FYI, doing a google search is no guarantee those source(s) like this website Vision Learning, are reliable for Wikipedia. History should not be written by a Professor of Environmental Toxicology or Assistant Professor Geological Sciences and Science Education! Alhazen's ethnicity[8], which has been argued on the talk page by myself, which Scienceis ignored when posting a 3rr on my talk page[9], has been pushed by IPs and other "new users" with them arriving with nothing but sources that have nothing to do with Alhazen's biography. None of the sources Scienceis has brought have anything to do Islamic history, thus have nothing to do with Alhazen's life or ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Ibn al-Haytham#Removing_of_sourced_material discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I have no particular knowledge about the subject of the article; I expect the editors to be able to explain any historical or factual details. I understand that there is an issue about the subject's ethnicity. I understand that he was one of the major scientific figures in the Golden Age of Islamic Science. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to complain about the editors. Uncivil statements or comments about editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions every 48 hours. Do not reply back-and-forth to each other. That has already been tried, and just goes back and forth. Address your comments to the moderator and to the community. Now: Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors
|
Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century
This has gotten off to a bad start. Discussion on the project talk page, which is not the proper place to discuss the dispute, has, while civil, been non-constructive and back-and-forth, as was the previous discussion on the talk page. This case is being closed for now to allow the parties to resume discussion on the article talk page. After they have gotten tired of back-and-forth and are willing to wait for a moderator, they are welcome to come back and refile this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is over accessibility and changing list syntax from ":*" to "**" This does not change how the article is viewed visually in anyway. It does change how screen readers voice the article. A lot of evidence was given to show how this effects screen reader users, none to show how it is detrimental to anybody. In short, is accessibility important or not? MOS page in question is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists where it states the best practice on how to code up a list. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help is a discussion that shows why it is a problem. Tahc and I were involved. I'm trying to follow MOS. Tahc believes MOS doesn't apply and older browsers will have problems with the "**" syntax. Tahc has shown no proof of this and Mediawiki software doesn't support older browsers anyway. Tahc also asked a discussion take place about MOS on the technical pump or the accessibility talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help was started several days later. I asked for a third opinion. 3rd party arrived, didn't understand the issue and hasn't been back. The Banner arrived asking for proof that this is a problem. MOS isn't proof. Showing HTML code isn't proof. Showing WCAG on how lists should be coded up isn't proof. Showing how screen readers would behave isn't proof. The Banner only wants outside research that this is a problem. As this is essentially a Wikipedia only problem, there would be no outside research. I started Talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List. People have stated the same things I have. Banner and Tahc have not participated. Tahc started today editing page and doing a search/replace... changing "**" back to ":*" Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third party dispute mechanism. Third party arrived, but didn't get involved. Asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help. How do you think we can help? After showing MOS, showing how the HTML code is bad, showing how screen reader's voice the page, showing how WCAG says lists should be coded, having another visually disabled person (Graham87) and person who worked as an accessibility software engineer (RexxS) (both via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help) give their opinions, it is still not good enough. I'm at a loss and feel no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Summary of dispute by TahcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by The BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I actually withdrew from the discussion after accusations that "I did not read what was written" by Bgwhite slamming the door shut by him. I have also asked for outside evidence that the method preferred by Bgwhite was actually better than the method used Tahc. That evidence never came. I understand the sensibility of the MOS but I have difficulties on the manner that it is applied. When you disagree, it goes down to an edit-war and close to MOS-pushing very quickly. And that is exactly what happened here. And to my opinion, this DRN-request is not much more than forum-shopping to get things his way now he fails to convince Tahc and me. The Banner talk 08:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Kleuske
Not presented as an article content dispute. (To the extent that it is an article content dispute, it has to do with the filing party not understanding the importance of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the medium to right great wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The editor feels it is his right to insult me repeatedly. The issue at hand was whether I should be allowed to record the history of a nation that has limited written records due to war and being a 3rd world nation. His response may or may not be a correct interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. But in question is his derisive and dismissive attitude and his resorting to swearing because he is the editing god. He is denying any of my factual references to the war of independence of Bangladesh (which is actually documented) although the level of book burning and loss of life is not. Jews get massacred in the holocaust and we are all respectful. Bengalis get massacred and whether someone takes not of how we spell names or how our families are structured, the actual loss of life is worthy of the same level of respect. It is not nationalistic nonsense as he describes. Granted apparently, Wikipedia is not the place for encyclopedic content unless it has been published somewhere else first. But it does not give him the right to beat me over the head with it. He could have just as easily said "You need to publish it somewhere else. Sorry." Why does Wikipedia tolerate this kind of ridicule and derision and bullying? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've requested an apology and he keeps making it worse. He is insisting that me asking for an apology for referring to the information as "nationalistic nonsense" is not required. He has not apologized but has instead resorted to telling me to "kiss his shiny metal ass". How do you think we can help? Remove his editorial privileges and install someone more civil or get him to apologize. Whether he is the final authority or not does not give him the right to speak to others that way. Summary of dispute by KleuskePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Kleuske discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Kianoush Rostami
Premature. There has been minimal discussion on the article talk page. The editors are advised to discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request for dispute resolution can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The issue is about the ethnicity of athlete Kianoush Rostami, who represented Iran in the Olympics. I keep adding his Kurdish ethnicity into his profile, but then some Iranian users keep deleting it, citing Iranian propaganda, supposedly coming out for your Kurdish identity is something Iran's enemy's invented to break up the country. Not only is this bullshit but denying someone's identity is very problematic and also pretty racist. The Kurdish people have had to deal with this for many years, which is why there is still an ongoing conflict in this region. Every people has the right to express their own culture and ethnicity. As I pointed out on the Talk page, Kianoush Rostami himself has been very outspoken about his ethnicity on social media. Would anyone accept it if any mention of Jeremy Lin's ethnicity was removed from his page? The moderators intervened and stopped the edit wars, but that just enforced the racist viewpoint of the Iranian users. Now nobody can add anything about his ethnicity. I tried to engage the other users in a discussion, but they have refused to answer. And why would they, if their preferred status quo is enforced by the moderators? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I would be completely fine with having "Iranian" as his nationality along with "Kurdish" as his ethnicity, along with some additional information about how Rostami expresses his identity. However, the Iranian user keeps removing ANY mention of his Kurdishness. I did not remove anything. But all my additions are being removed.
Enforce my solution. Have both mentions of his nationality and ethnicity there. Denying someone's culture and ethnicity should not be cool on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by ParraxPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RonazPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kianoush Rostami discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Asperger syndrome#General_comments.2C_IG_and_AS
Apparently abandoned by filing party. The filing party was advised by include editor User:Jytdog among the parties, and to notify the two listed editors and editor Jytdog of this filing. After asking how to provide notice, the filing party has not provided that notice (or added a key editor). Editors should go back to the article talk page and discuss. If discussions there are inconclusive, they may refile here. Editors are reminded that all sources must satisfy the medical reliable source standards. Editors are also asked not to close any discussions on the article talk page in which they have been active participants (even on MEDRS grounds), but to let someone else close discussions. The unregistered editor is advised that creating an account has advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed 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 I am advocating for the inclusion of an important sub-topic in the article. I have provided some review and book references on the subject and demonstrated that it is well known to be a part of the larger topic and should not be omitted. The only open point in the discussion is the statistics for IG+ASD and a suitable reference. I am in process of getting that information now. The editor jydog, despite my having presented WP:MEDRS qualified references describing the proposed sub-topic, has prematurely and somewhat capriciously closed the discussion. Overall his participation was not constructive and drew me and distracted from the discussion. Doc james and Dbrodbeck were helpful and I feel they will contribute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Since he has closed the discussion, there is little I can do. How do you think we can help? Re-open the discussion. As mentioned in the overview (above), I am in process of collecting WP:MEDRS references on the open point in the discussion, and then will want to solicit comments and suggestions and develop consensus for the additional content and resources. Summary of dispute by Doc JamesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DbrodbeckPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Asperger syndrome#General_comments.2C_IG_and_AS discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Bank War
Closed as no timely response. The editors have not responded with 72 hours after the case was opened. Editors are asked to discuss on the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, a neutrally worded Request for Comments may be filed. This case may be refiled, but the moderator may expect a response within 24 hours if this case is refiled and reopened.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The question of the using the word "slavery" in the lede of the article, in reference to the Andrew Jackson administration (1829-1837). User:Display name 99 began with the deletion of the sentence “The National Republican leadership aligned themselves with the Bank because it offered what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson – and less so because they were champions of the BUS.” See Talk section “Motives for Recharter” I defended the content, and 99 abandoned the topic. Next, 99 objected to the sentence “The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty and therefore it posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery.” and 99 deleted it. See section “Slavery in the Lead” I reverted it and 99 deleted it again and warned me not to revert it. 99 objected to the sentence because “Slavery had nothing to do with the Bank War” and supplied quotes from the well-known historian Robert Remini to support it. I provided citations and quotes from the Historian Richard H. Brown, and other citations from the article and google books to support the sentence as a counterpoint to his argument. A third opinion was obtained. In response, 99 wrote “I would be OK with replacing ‘The Jacksonians’ with something like ‘Many Southerners’. In other words the issue of “slavery” was abandoned, and another objection introduced. Next, 99 complained that the article presented Andrew Jackson as a strict constructionist on the matter of theSecond Bank of the United States – another departure from the original complaint about “slavery” in the lede. The exchange on Talk page seems to be open-ended, without any precision as to 99’s objections. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy, open-ended exchange, that tends to morph from topic to topic. How do you think we can help? Pick a winner, based on the quality of the article Bank War and talk page arguments. 36hourblock wrote and provided citations for 99% of the article, so he is the one defending it. Summary of dispute by Display name 99Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
36hourblock has provided a fairly accurate summary, although I do disagree with some things that he has said concerning my position. Suggesting that we replace "Jacksonians" with "Many Southerners" was not in any way abandoning the slavery issue. It simply shows that, while some Southerners may have been concerned with protecting slavery, doing so was not an overarching concern, as I believe the article currently does in an inaccurate way. Also, I do think that my objections were clear. To defend my argument, I have repeatedly cited and pulled two direct quotes from a biography of Andrew Jackson written by Robert Remini, in addition to citing various examples of historical trends, events, and other facts that I believe go against 36hourblock's case. Display name 99 (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC) Talk:Bank War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorThe ground rules are as specified in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. The issues appear to involve the wording of the lede paragraph, in particular with respect to slavery and Southerners. Will each party please state, in one paragraph, what they think are the key issues, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors
|
André (artist)
Conduct dispute. DRN only handles content disputes. For conduct disputes, speak to an administrator or file a report at ANI after carefully reading the instructions there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Is it right if user Chisme calls me a « bitch » ? I am quite patient, open and welcoming of his point of view in spite of his inappropriate behavior. I just want to render the article André (artist) neutral as it should be with an impartial tone. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have talked with him - Talk:André_(artist) How do you think we can help? Maybe an experienced user can help. Summary of dispute by ChismePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
André (artist) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Elihu Yale
Premature. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. Please discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Elihu Yale (who contributed to Yale University) was born in the colonies. But by all common understanding of the period he was an "Englishman": "America" had not yet been established (not until 1776) nor had "Britain" (not until 1805) - so he can't have been "American" nor could he be "British". His family was from England and moved back to England when has was about 2 years old. He grew up in England, he worked extensively in India and he retired in England and Wales. Wikipedia lists someone from the opposite perspective - born in the UK but clearly from an American family as "American": Wentworth Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Miller So it doesn't make sense and is inconsistent to list Elihu Yale as "American" (or "British") - he never grew up in America, he never lived there by his own choice (he never returned to America), he never worked there and he didn't die there... and as far as we know he didn't speak as an American. Various users (IDs: Cydebot, 72.162.48.250, 73.184.108.44 and 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63) keep changing the designation away from "English" to between "American" or "British" - neither are correct.
In April 2016 I posted an open discussion in the Talk section. It had no response. How do you think we can help? Let's be consistent, reasonable and accurate and set it to "English". Thank you. -Kim Summary of dispute by 72.162.48.250Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 73.184.108.44Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Elihu Yale discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict
Procedural close. The filing editor did not notify the other editor of this filing. The editors should go back to the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, then a request can be refiled here with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In Iran–PJAK conflict#Foreign involvement, I have added verifiable content from and attributed to reliable sources. User:Greyshark09 started a pseudo-editwar, making constant groundless claimes that my edit violates various guidlines and policies without further explaination. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Step one, I have tried to discuss with User:Greyshark09, however he seems reluctant to discuss and evades answering me. Step two, I requested for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was not answered. How do you think we can help? I think this is a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing case, and hard to be dealt. Maybe an experienced user can help. Summary of dispute by Greyshark09Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources
Procedural close. Filing party has also filed at conflict of interest noticeboard. Filing party is warned concerning forum shopping. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Some editors are engaged in blacklisting an institution, fully national recognized. Furthermore, they resist to let the website of the University to be listed, no matter what reliable sources has been provided Have you tried to resolve this previously? Contacting ech editors trough they talk page, asking to reconsider the sources provided How do you think we can help? Take a fresh look into this, since many students got harm by the bad publicity its seems to be publish as reliable, and do not follow the so called enciclopedic format Summary of dispute by VanjagenijePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ShivayvesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by General IzationPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Dear Robert: I corrected the editor name General_Ization Sorry for the mistake Taesulkim (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Please notice, none has a different approach, or reliable sources rather the ones I provided. Please consider adding either www.unem.edu.pl as shown in the UNESCO WHED listing or the national website www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr Taesulkim (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear @Robert_McClenon What should I do.. As you mentioned, an editor is not concern about content, the other does not reply, but he undo my edits time after time. I try to avoid a war edit at all cost, but he does not provide any help, or any sustainable argument, why should I don't include the website within the article.Taesulkim (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International_Airport#Language_laws_and_the_airport
Premature. A request for a third opinion is pending. If the third opinion is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview An editor is adding information that is unsourced, may or may not be true while the other doesn't want to have unsourced, original research in the article. Discussion has come to a stand still and the next steps to take are unclear. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Edit warring How do you think we can help? Provide feedback on next steps to take. Summary of dispute by JoshDonaldson20Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International_Airport#Language_laws_and_the_airport discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:%22Panzer ace%22_in_popular_culture#Kershaw
Abandoned. The filing party has not edited within the week since filing this thread. Further discussion of the reliability of sources may be at the reliable source noticeboard or at an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War" Hodder 2009 is currently being challenged as to whether it is a Wikipedia Reliable Source or not, in reference to the article "Panzer ace" in popular culture Currently, there are efforts to remove it from the article. Could you please advise if it is a reliable source under wikipedia RS guidelines? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked for the other editors to explain how the book doesn't meet Wk:RS. So far some explanations have been given, but the reasons are nothing to do with Wikipedia RS guidelines. An admin also advised that the book *does* meet Wikipedia RS guidelines. How do you think we can help? Please have a look at the reference and advise if it meets RS guidelines, and if it can be used in the articles. Thanks very much Summary of dispute by K.e.coffmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AssayerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:%22Panzer ace%22_in_popular_culture#Kershaw discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Comment: I would suggest that the reliable sources noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this discussion. If it has already been discussed there, can we get a link to the discussion? DonIago (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC) OK, I will move it there, sorry I wasn't aware of the reliable sources noticeboard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
|