Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 191
 | 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 185 | ← | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | → | Archive 195 |
Rebecca Heineman
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Thread opened at ANI. Conduct here is excessively passive-aggressive. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
} Filed by 3nk1namshub on 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC).
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 Another editor insists on deadnaming a trans woman. I believe this is excessive and goes against MOS:IDINFO. I would like dispute resolution as I believe talking alone will not resolve the issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Rebecca_Heineman#Deadnaming How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? User is not open to discussion on the issue. I believe this is clear violation of MOS::IDINFO and excessive deadnaming of a trans person. Summary of dispute by IndrianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First, some background. Rebecca Heineman is a competitive video game playing champion, column author, and video game designer that through much of her career presented as male and was given a male name at birth. She then transitioned to female in the early 2000s. Most of her significant career occurred under her birth name, which includes credits in video games as well as a byline in a monthly column she wrote for Electronic Games in the early 1980s. Her birth name is well known and was part of her public persona until she transitioned in the early 2000s. The article is respectful of this history and follows all Wikipedia policies and conventions in the use of gendered pronouns and in respecting and not calling into question Rebecca's self-identification. This is as it should be. Since 2014, there has been a concerted - though not to my knowledge coordinated - effort to erase this name from the article on the grounds that including this name is hurtful either to Ms. Heineman or to the larger trans community on the grounds that it constitutes "Deadnaming," or the use of her birth name without her consent. Deadnaming is often considered an aggressive act within the trans community as well as an attempt to overtly delegitimize a self-identification made by a trans individual. In this context it is a harmful, and often shameful, practice. This has led to an understandable, though at times zealous, stance towards halting the practice of deadnaming in any place it occurs and in any context in which the deadname is used. In personal communication with the subject, in current legal documents describing the subject, and in ordinary discourse discussing a person's past and present life, the use of the birth name should absolutely be avoided. I don't think there is any dispute there. Where we do have a dispute, it seems, is in how to place a birth name in historical context. When a person's entire period of encyclopedic notability occurs after the adoption of a new name and the self-identification of a different gender, this is likely relatively straightforward. In this case, however, we have an individual who worked under her birth name for decades and was credited and attributed under that name. In this case, the birth name simply must be acknowledged within the body of the article, and Wikipedia policy agrees on that point. The current Manual of Style section on Changed Names states that "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly." This is our current policy. 3nk1namshub, who it should be noted upfront has not removed the birth name entirely, but has reduced it to only appearing in the Infobox, would instead have us look to MOS:IDINFO. Unlike the changed name policy cited above, this is not a current Wikipedia policy, but rather a "draft working proposal" that "must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion." As such, it "should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal." But let's leave aside its force as policy and instead look to its recommendations to see where consensus may go in the future. The very first recommendation in the proposal is as follows: When choosing how to refer to a transgender subject, consider the use–mention distinction. Before using a transgender person's former or legal name, consider only mentioning it instead. And before mentioning it, consider not including it at all. For example, the article Switched-On Bach mentions but doesn't use Wendy Carlos's former name: "Switched-On Bach is the first studio album by the American composer Wendy Carlos, released under her birth name Walter Carlos". Other methods are then subsequently suggested, including the use of a footnote. Despite several offers by me to compromise on the extent and contextualization of the name both before and after the opening of this DRN, we appear to be at an impasse. 3nk1namshub would prefer that the birth name appear only in the infobox of the article, or perhaps additionally in a footnote. I feel that doing so effectively hides the name from the casual reader, provides the potential for some confusion when trying to tie the subject's works to the subject, and promotes protecting feelings over properly reporting historical fact. I am not the original author of any of the naming material currently in the article and agree with my fellow user that the number of mentions in the body of the article can, and probably should, be lessened so that the use of the name does not come across as aggressive. My preference then, would be to continue identifying the birth name in the lead in a manner consistent with the manual of style while also referring to the birth name as it appears in the byline of her Electronic Games column and in the credits for her more significant games in a manner consistent with recommendation one in the MOSIDINFO proposal. I am happy to defer to 3nk1namshub on the most appropriate and sensitive way to accomplish these goals so long as the birth name continues to be identified in the body as needed for proper context of authored works. What I would prefer not to be a party to is mostly ignoring or shunting the birth name off to the nooks and crannies of the article, which feels like an erasure of history even if that is not the primary intent of 3nk1namshub. Facts are facts, and we cannot remove or marginalize them solely to avoid offense. What we can do, however, is minimize the offense as much as possible in a way that is consistent with also maintaining the historical record. Indrian (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Rebecca Heineman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I believe @Indrian: has summarized the dispute nicely, much better than I believe I could have. I would just like to add some additional info as to why I have opened a dispute. First, the amount of deadnaming on Rebecca's page was excessive: 8 times by my count, sometimes once per sentence, with wordings that absolutely added nothing to the article. Any attempts to reword or fix this were reverted. Second was Indrian's responses to talk page posts and edit messages in reverts. They seem (in my opinion) to be over-the-top and aggressive; claiming politics, censorship, removal of history, and personal agendas, as well as multiple references to the book 1984. After reading several of their responses, it seemed clear to me that no consensus was possible without outside intervention, hence why I opened this DRN. Indrian, please feel free to respond to this paragraph and clarify or correct anything I've said. I will not be making further responses here unless necessary for the DRN to continue. In addition, I will not be responding further on Rebecca's talk page as I've become frustrated and I don't want to say anything that may be rude, unnecessary, etc. Thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sadly, it appears that 3nk1namshub is not actually interested in discussion and compromise, but is far more interested in silencing those that disagree with them as concurrent with this discussion they have decided to go to WP:ANI. I continue to stand by everything that I have said on this page and am happy to reach a respectful compromise on the competing interests of respecting personal preferences and providing historical context. I must append, however, that 3nk1namshub clearly has a wider agenda of attempting to bully into silence those that disagree with them on Wikipedia policy. How unfortunate. Indrian (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires recent extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. While there has been some discussion on this dispute, it's not been recent. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 2 July 2020 (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 User Lambtron have introduced changes that are currently disputed and opposed by me, primary editor of the template's page. Having no good reasoning behind it he/she didn't make a good effort to neither restore status-quo version, nor to agree to offered compromise. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Decide on whether changes were justified by applying common sense and side with respective party to help to achieve consensus. Summary of dispute by LambtronPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits: Revision history discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Aleister Crowley
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Subsection to be added. I'll keep the page watchlisted in case of further developments. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Dereck Camacho on 17:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
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 article of Aleister Crowley has the pseudoscientific fringe claim that under the special name of “Agent 666” Crowley was a secret agent spy at the service of the UK government doing such adventures that range from spying on Irish rebels to review oil resources in Mexico and so on. Of this fringe theory we only have the authors’ word as they do not provide any sort of evidence whatsoever, the entire justification and even the redacting of Agent 666 adventures are unproven speculation on behalf of two very imaginative authors, but that present no proof of their claims. Even the redacting of the text in almost every instace say “this guy and this guy claim that Crowley was [insert some adventurous spying action here]”. Some of this claims even violates the policies on Biographies of Living People (which despite the name apply to Crowley as they apply to people with less than 150 years dead) as some can be considered slanderous, for example they claim that Crowley willingly started conflict in the Golden Dawn under government orders to destroy the organization from inside, not only a very outstanding claim but one that if true would stain Crowley’s reputation in the Occult world. Paraphrasing Sagan outstanding claims require outstanding evidence. Although the information deserve to be removed, I started with what I considered was a reasonable compromise, not to remove it but to place it all in one separate section as policy guidelines recommend regarding unproven facts and pseudoscience. However user Midnightblueowl rejected the idea and with no proposal for any other compromiso refuses to any change on the status quo. A Request for Comment was open but was basically a tie, however among the many commenters the supporters of placing the fringe theory in a special section make some very solid arguments about the pseudohistorical nature of the claims. As can be seen here How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? This request for comment:[1] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By locating the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand. Summary of dispute by MidnightblueowlFor those who are unfamiliar with the situation, Aleister Crowley always claimed to have worked for British intelligence services while living in the United States during World War I. In 2008, Richard B. Spence (Professor of History at the University of Idaho) published a book arguing that Crowley actually worked for British intelligence for much of his life and that this was the reason for many of his foreign travels. This was partly based on an article that Spence had earlier published in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. Spence's ideas were subsequently endorsed by the historian Tobias Churton, then lecturer at the University of Exeter, in his 2011 book Aleister Crowley: The Biography (Churton has also published several further books on Crowley and contributed a chapter to the edited volume Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism, published by Oxford University Press in 2012). Another recent academic commentator on Crowley, Marco Pasi (Associate Professor at the University of Amsterdam), devoted much attention to the argument in his Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, even though he did not ultimately accept it. It is a disputed argument, most certainly, and has been presented as such within the GA-rated article for many years. In May, Dereck appeared on the Crowley article Talk Page, insisting that this argument is "ludacris" and "pseudoscience" (even though it doesn't actually pretend to be science) and thus should not be presented in any way that gives it credence to the reader. Citing WP:Fringe, Dereck has argued that all mention of the argument should be moved to a single paragraph in the article, rather than being integrated at other junctures of the text, as it has been for many years. I very much doubt that Dereck is actually familiar with the published sources on the Spence-Churton argument; I also believe that they are making the argument appear more sensationalistic than it actually is, largely by repeatedly making a point out of the somewhat unfortunate title of Spence's book, Secret Agent 666. (The fact that above, Dereck says Spence claimed "Secret Agent 666" was Crowley's codename just goes to show that Dereck clearly has not read his book, as Spence never claimed this). The reality is that it is certainly a disputed and circumstantial argument (I for one don't actually believe it), but that does not make it pseudohistory, which seems to be the thrust of Dereck's argument. It is a minority view among historians, and is presented as such in the article. Two days after Dereck initially raised their concerns, I initiated an RfC on the issue. This has proven inconclusive, albeit with a very small majority in opposition to Dereck's proposed changes (five to four). Hence, why I assume that Dereck has brought the issue here. Unfortunately, their approach to dealing with this issue has been slightly combative, both to myself and to User:Josh Milburn, who was one of those who contributed to the RfC. Aside from misrepresenting the nature of the Spence-Churton argument, Dereck has also made exaggerated and outright erroneous claims on multiple occasions during the debate: for instance stating that a "clear majority" of RfC commentators backed them, when it was in fact only a minority, that the article presently mentions the Spence-Churton argument "in almost every paragraph" when in reality it mentions it in only five out of sixty-five paragraphs, and that WP:Biographies of Living Persons applies to someone who died in 1947, which is total nonsense. I welcome the thoughts of additional editors, although I would caution against accepting Dereck's characterisation of the Spence-Churton argument and the debate more broadly too literally. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Aleister Crowley discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Moderator statementThank you both for your contributions. You've both indicated that you're amenable to compromise, and that's always a good sign. Here are my rules for the discussion:
So where can we find compromise? Because the RfC was inconclusive, there is not a consensus to separate the espionage claims into their own section. Neither is there a consensus for status quo, because status quo is why we're here.
You can answer these in the negative. Also, pretend you're responding to me and me only. Past this point, I don't care what one editor says about another, and you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm neutral in this. Also, one more question for Dereck Camacho: Since this is an issue of due weight, it would seem that adding a section dedicated to the espionage claim does not alter the balance (indeed, it would be added to the TOC). Is it your concern that, because the espionage claims are placed throughout the article, that there would seem to be a sort of subtle insistence that Crowley was a spy? Short of making the spy claim its own section, is there a way to mitigate this effect without removing the claims entirely? Again:
--Xavexgoem (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Discussion
I personally think that the longstanding system, whereby we integrate the argument chronologically with the rest of the article, reads best. That's why I argued for it at the RfC, and clearly it gained some support from other editors. However, I cannot say that Dereck's proposal, of moving it all into a single section, would be disastrous for the article. I don't think it would be an improvement, but the article would not suffer greatly because of it, so long as it was done carefully. Of course, we would still have to mention Crowley's claims that he worked for British intelligence during the First World War at the chronologically appropriate juncture of the article; that should be considered separate from the wider Spence-Churton argument. I would also stress that at no point in the article should we start referring to the argument as "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory" or anything like that, because that is not how the Reliable Sources characterise it, and nor should we present the Spence-Churton argument in a manner that is clearly worded so as to try and discredit it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Seal Team Six
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | not enough participation to have a discussion Nightenbelle (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is a difference of opinion over some of the terms being used in the article. Some editors contend these are military jargon which sometimes veer into euphemism, and are thus unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Other editors counter that these are widely-used terms that are explained fully at their linked articles, and thus present no problem. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:SEAL_Team_Six#Active_edit_war_on_this_page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By pointing us toward relevant guidelines we may be unaware of, or toward relevant discussions on similar topics where a policy was decided. Summary of dispute by BusterDPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have exactly one edit to this page, a reversion on May 15 I felt was a BLP vio because it was unsourced. IMHO, the content of that edit is unrelated to the content in this dispute. Later that day I saw a series of edits ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) which seemed to indicate possible 3RR violations, and clearly demonstrated an edit war in progress. My part in this has been to create a talk thread in which to discuss the dispute ([10]), a thank you post to those who chose to engage in discussion ([11]), and a notification (and request for eyes) at the relevant WikiProject talk space ([12]). I have made no comment on the content under disagreement. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Garuda28Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Buckshot06Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Seal Team Six discussionModerator's First StatementGood Morning, or whatever time it is where you are, I am volunteering to mediate this discussion. I have reviewed the discussion on the talk page and am familiar with the issue and material, though neutral on the specific issue. Before we begin I have a few questions. 1st- does everyone agree to participate in the discussion here? and 2- do you all understand, this is a mediation board, we cannot impose or enforce decisions- we simply help generate and direct conversation until all parties agree on a solution. Assuming participation and understanding of purpose, I would ask that each editor begin by stating their concerns and hoped resolution clearly and concisely. Please focus on your own specific concerns and goals- and do not engage in back and forth debate yet or speculation on other parties concerns. This process is designed to remove the inconsequential side issues (squirrels) and let us focus on the heart of what is being contested. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Moderator's Second StatementSo, I took a look at what links to the definition of Direct Actions- and I found the term is not used exclusively by American forces- its also used by forces based in Denmark, Israel, Canada, India, Germany, South Africa, New Zeland, Singapore, Italy, Norway, Indonesia, Australia, Slovakia, and Malaysia to name a few. So I'm not sure why its use for seal team six is controversial- would you please explain that in more detail please? Just to be sure I understand completely. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Participant DiscussionKonli17Many articles to do with Western or Western-aligned militaries often use Western military jargon instead of clearer terms. And while that's not ideal, it's worse when those terms are euphemisms; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms gives a military euphemism as an example. It's also odd that these terms are never used to describe the actions of enemies of the militaries concerned, adding to the perception that euphemism is their purpose. I've no objection to the use of the term, but with explanation, and not at the cost of NPOV or precision. Konli17 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's Third StatementWe need participation from others involved, or this will have to be closed due to lack of participation. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Planet Fitness
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Appears to be resolved on talk page. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 04:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Katherine311MH on 19:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC).
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 According to news sources and a legal document, Rick Berks founded Planet Fitness. I added the facts to the History section of the page, and Stonkaments deleted them. We have been discussing it on the Talk page, however Stonkaments ignores my points and reverts my edits. I have even provided a legal document that discusses the case in detail but Stonkaments still chose to ignore it and reverted again. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planet_Fitness I thought if I cited news sources and even provided a legal document, that would end the discussion. I have been trying to sound neutral, however I am getting frustrated.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I suggested that we add subsections to the history. One for the original founder and another for the franchise operation. I am not disputing that the people who bought PF in 2002 turned it into a huge company, however there is a place in the history for the person who named it and owned 3 gyms before the trademark was purchased. I honestly don't understand why Stonkaments keeps deleting those notes. Thank you for your help. Summary of dispute by StonkamentsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Planet Fitness discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment - Please notify the other editor of this case on their talk page. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
|
National Aeronaval Service
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN is to help editors involved in a dispute come to consensus, not to recruit more editors into the discussion (which is not to say that the filing editor is trying to do that; I'm just stating the ground rules). At this point I see no possibility of forming consensus between the two editors currently involved in this dispute, as they've been debating it for almost two months. The fact that a template is being used for a purpose for which it is not specifically designed does not violate any policy or guideline so template use is determined solely by consensus, see INFOBOXUSE. It appears that the military infobox was in use here before either editor became involved with the page. Under BURDEN an editor who wants to change existing content is under an obligation to obtain consensus for the change if someone has objected. The filing editor wants to make a change and the responding editor has objected, so it is incumbent on Ckfasdf to obtain consensus for the change they wish to make. The first step to that is to try to change the mind of the objecting editor, but that's pretty clearly not going to happen. So the next step to that is to try to attract other editors into the discussion. Neither Third Opinion nor DRN is intended for that purpose (Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus), so the only options at this point are to post neutral requests at relevant projects or, more decisively, to file a request for comments, or both contemporaneously. I would close by noting that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here at Wikipedia, so if either of those methods fails to obtain a consensus to change the infobox then the best advice would be to drop the stick. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Few months ago, I began to change to replace on the page infobox into infobox law enforcement agency. The subject of the dispute, National Aeronaval Service is a part of Panamanian Public Forces (a country without military), so my reason to replace infobox is simply because Panama don't have military. Then, FOX 52 began to reverting changes on this page infobox, and we began discussion on talk page. And eventually it's not really going anywhere, as he keep adding arbitrary criteria to justify the usage of military unit infobox. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:National Aeronaval Service#Panama infobox How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another neutral editor or other editors could review our dispute and help to arrive at a consensus. Summary of dispute by FOX 52Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
National Aeronaval Service discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Lawrence Kasdan
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct issues abound. (see summaries on diffs [13][14][15][16]). ANI is not uncalled for. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Tgreiving on 15:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
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 added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given is that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." I've communicated with the user directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. How can I resolve this situation according to Wikipedia's protocols, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the article? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I've tried reverting the changes back multiple times, I've asked for advice from other users in the Help chatroom, and even requested dispute resolution from volunteer Steven Crossin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steven_Crossin#Dispute_with_user_Revan646_on_Lawrence_Kasdan_article This in addition to communicating directly with the user in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revan646 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would ideally like for my edits to the Lawrence Kasdan be reviewed and (hopefully) approved, assuming they meet Wikipedia's standards, and for user Revan646 to be prevented from continually, completely undoing the new work. Summary of dispute by Revan646Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lawrence Kasdan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment - This is almost certainly a conduct issue. See this revision with summary: "Restoring the page prior to when the user Tgreiving ruined it. Tgreiving keeps filling this page up with unnecessary information while also deleting useful information like his filmography. The fact that Tgreiving makes it too long isn't the only reason I keep removing their stupid edits. Someone needs to block Tgreiving. They're just not getting it." And this: "I am once again reverting the page back to how it was before the user Tgrieving came along and ruined it. Not only is it ridiculously way too long but Tgrieving also removes useful information like Kasdans filmography. Tgrieving must be a troll or stupid. Wikipedia editors need to block Tgrieving from continually ruining this Wikipedia page." I doubt mediation will be fruitful, but someone might want to take a stab at it. But I'm thinking an admin is necessary here. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
|
2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Settled at article talk page. Kudos. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (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 presence of Niskanen's election ratings, which appear in both the article about the 2020 United States Senate elections (and has a lengthy discussion there) and the presidential election. It was present in the article before being removed multiple times by one editor (who tried to do the same thing at the senate page) We have both agreed to abide by any resolution How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings#Niskanen Ratings Talk:2020 United States Senate elections#Removal of Niskanen Center ratings How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ruling one way or the other on the dispute, whether to maintain the status quo from before the dispute where Niskanen was included, or to change the table and leave the data out.
Summary of dispute by Wollers14Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings discussionModerator's 1st StatementBefore we start any kind of discussion, Playlet (talk · contribs) please place the notification of open DRN on Wollers14 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I'm familiar with the material and neutral so I'm willing to moderate this dispute. HOWEVER, It looks like you are both wanting an admin to come in and make a decision- that is not what the DRN does- we moderate discussions and hopefully facilitate a compromise. I am happy to do that, but it looks like a WP:RFC may be more appropriate to try to find a consensus. If you are both willing to work towards an agreement here, please confirm and also state what you would like to see happen by the end of the discussion. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Opening discussion and statementsFair enough. I have taken it to Wikipedia:Third opinion @Playlet: @Nightenbelle: Hello here is something I am willing to do. We can keep the Niskanen ratings up for now until more reputable ratings like 538, Fox, or CNN etc come out. After at least one of those come out we can remove the ratings because I would like to give Bitecofer one more election to pass to see if her predictions line up before adding them to any future pages for permanent use. There's my proposal. Wollers14 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Rape in Islamic law
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Listed nine days with no volunteer interested in taking case. Consider RFC. Moreover, I can't find any recent talk page discussion for this dispute and I'm not at all sure that it qualifies for DRN in the first place. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Basically there is a dispute over which editor's version authentically follows the academic sources - mine[17] or Vice regents' [18] 1. VR's version emphasises the minority viewpoints that marital rape is considered a crime in Islam. Yet the sources say that "marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under dominant interpretations of the sharia."[19] Hence, the section should emphasise and start with the dominant views per WP:DUE. 2. In VR's version the opening line says that "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape." But that is not what the cited source said. It says (after describing what the definition of rape is in each classical Islamic school of jurisprudence) "From these judicial opinions, rape can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent"." After that in a footnote, the author expresses his personal opinion (and not that of the classical jurists) that marital rape is classified as "domestic violence." 3. Another problem with VR's version is that it says "certain" Hanafi jurists allow marital rape, when no such qualification is used in the sources. The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife,[1][2] without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists.. 4. Another issue is over the text on what the non-Hanafi jurists say. My proposed version reads "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it." This is backed by the source here [20] VR says these jurists still criminalise forced sex in marriage under a different classification (i.e. domestic violence). But the source quite clearly states that the non-Hanafis do not penalise a husband for forced sex with his wife. If they held it to be domestic violence they would have still penalised it. The source says they did not. 5. VR quotes Hina Azam as saying that perineal tearing is criminalised in Islamic law yet excludes the same Hina Azam source when it says that coercion within marriage is still "fundamentally legal."[21] Another aspect is that the academics differentiate between forced sex involving physical violence, which might be considered a legal infraction by the classical jurists, from other forced sex.[22] 6. I think we should also include the views of Hanafi jurists such as al-Nasafi [23] who do not hold a man liable for the death of his wife resulting from forced sex. References
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? There were extensive discussions on the talkpage but they never got anywhere.[24][25] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can check each user's version against the sources provided and see who is more faithfully following the sources. I have provided the quotes from the sources here For each sentence of my text I have displayed the quotes from the cited sources, here.[26] Summary of dispute by Vice regentI'll keep it short. The basic gist is whether marital rape is allowed in Islam. Mcphurphy's assertions that Islam - a religion of 1.4 billion people, or 20% of humans - allows a man to rape and kill his wife (see his point #6 above) should raise red flags. In fact, I listed reliable source that say that Islam prohibits marital rape: Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#Sources_that_say_Islam_prohibits_marital_rape. So what of the sources Mcphurphy lists? The user is doing two things: WP:CHERRYPICKING and confusing some nuances in the Islamic faith. I'll give two examples. Mcphurphy wrote above, Mcphurphy also wrote, VR talk 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Rape in Islamic law discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
United Artists
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion on the talk page since September 2019. What discussion there was in support of making the proposed distinction was not based on secondary sources, so there are questions of WP:V. At any rate, current discussion on the talk page is required for us to accept the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by 94.123.199.31 on 05:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There's a bunch of misinformation saying that United Artists currently exists as a digital production studio. It's not true, because United Artists currently exists as two companies: United Artists Corporation, a legal entity under MGM that owns the UA trademarks and some copyrights for the James Bond and Rocky franchises; and United Artists Releasing, which is basically a resurrection of UA in general because it's a US theatrical distribution joint venture of MGM and Annapurna Pictures that was expanded in 2019 and it's not only using the UA name, but also continuing and building on the original UA's legacy and heritage as a distribution company for independents. United Artists Digital Studios is just a separate, short-lived production unit under MGM that only used the UA name unofficially and isn't related to UA in general, plus the original Annapurna/MGM joint venture isn't called Mirror when it was formed in 2017 (and it was in October, not December). The news articles didn't say that. It just wasn't named until its expansion in 2019 and it was a test that saw MGM invest in Annapurna's one-time theatrical distribution arm in exchange for having its team release certain MGM movies in the US under the MGM banner. "Mirror" was just a separate banner under the venture for third-party movies only. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Can you please apply these changes here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Artists&diff=946916875&oldid=945122528 Summary of dispute by SpshuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United Artists discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is true. 94.123.199.31 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Lunch Date
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | participants have agreed to a solution. Thank you for your quick and polite discussion Nightenbelle (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute over whether to list BB Gandanghari (subject to WP:BLP) as her present name or the name she was billed on the show as. A compromise was already offered (to list both) but was only accepted by two users (one party to the original talk and the other brought in via the Third Opinion Request process) in the discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Lunch_Date#Billing_of_the_actress_now_known_as_BB_Gandanghari How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing a solution based on WP policy on how to list Gandanghari as. Summary of dispute by HotwikiI wasn't notified about this through my talk page but I'll go ahead. According to MOS:TV, the name credited in the show should be used. The other name suggested wasn't even created when the show was airing and when the show ended. Also, the article is for a TV show, not BB Gandanghari. I simply don't see the need to mention the name change, years after the show has ended.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Lunch Date discussionModerator's First StatementGood morning, or whatever time of day it is where you are. My name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to moderate this case. I've reviewed the talk page and previous discussion of this issue. First- IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat (talk · contribs), when you open one of these- you must notify the other editors on their talk page. I've notified Hotwiki (talk · contribs) this time, but please be mindful in the future. Thanks Now... I see that a 3O has already been done, and the suggestion by them was that a short statement be included "Could a compromise be to list them as "Rustom Padilla (now known as BB Gandanghari)"?" Hotwiki Why, exactly, are you opposed to this compramise? I understand that the actress changed her name long after the show ended, but that doesn't change the fact that the person who acted in this show now has a new identity. To prevent confusion and preserve continuitity, it seems prudent to reflect that in some way- we are an information community, is it not our duty to include all relevant information without putting undue emphasis on any one perspective? Would adding those five words harm the article beyond repair? I do see that including the name used on the show, even if it is now a dead name, is important as well because it is how that person was identified on the show. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Participants' first statements
Moderator's Second StatementUser:IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat are you good with adding the statement, "Rustom Padilla (now known as BB Gandanghari)"? If so.... then I think we've found our compromise and solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Participants' second statements
|
Tell Abyad
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | the matter involves an ongoing current event, there isn't a final answer available and neither party is interested in a short term compramise. Perhaps a volunteer with more detailed knowledge of the event could do more to help, but none have stepped forward and I feel I am unable to moderate further. Since this dispute was open nine days before any volunteer was willing to attempt it, I'm going to suggest you find a wiki project to assist or a RFC to try to find a consensus. I'm sorry we were unable to assist. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is about one quote of the Washington Post which says: The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab. Amr ibn Kulthoum (from now on Amr) and I have a different point of view of what belongs into the article. Amr insists that the quote has to be included as it is from the Washington Post. But Tell Abyad wasn't renamed to Gire Spi and the Kurds have also not detached Tell Abyad from the Raqqa Governorate "unilaterally" , then Latin script is current in Syria, too. The "welcome to Tell Abyad" plate stayed at the entrance of the town throughout all the time the Kurds co-governed the town. The Kurds only allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled as well. Also, Tell Abyad wasn't a part of the Raqqa Governorate as it was captured from ISIS by the Kurds. The Wapo article is from 2015, the Raqqa Governorate was in large parts in possession of ISIS until 2016, Raqqa only fell in October 2017. I say we can mention that the Kurds allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled and printed as well, instead of renaming the town from Tell Abyad to Gire Spi and that Tell Abyad was included into the Kobane Canton. But not "unilaterally" detached, it was detached before, too and is detached now as well. I guess the points are extensively present in the discussion mentioned below. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[28]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you could look at the arguments presented in the discussion and then comment on them. Maybe you bring us to reach an agreement about what of the disputed content is to stay and what has to be removed. Summary of dispute by Amr ibn KulthoumI had already presented my arguments in the Talk page. I am not really sure what User Paradise is complaining about, besides simply asking to remove or modify the direct quote from Washington Post, which is one of the most credible sources used in Kurdish-related articles, compared to ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, etc. that they prefer using. Here are my arguments to debunk Paradise's claims:
On a similar note, in their Kurdification of northern Syria zeal, PYD/YPG came up with a new name (Sere Kaniye) to replace the 1000+ year old name of Ras al-Ayn (see here).
Summary of dispute by Konli17Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page." Until someone volunteers to mediate this dispute (and after a week, no-one has), I don't see any point in contributing here. Konli17 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CengizsogutluI told with link,photos even videos and road signs the city is under control of TFSA & Turkey seized from Kurdish YPG. Before civil war city called officialy Tal Abyad. After being captured by People's Protection Units local council renamed city to Gri spi. Arab and Turkmen were forced to migrate to Turkey. Well things changed a lot after Turkey and TFSA launch Operation Peace Spring city's name offcialy Tal/Tell Abyad again. To prove this, i share names in the city center, the local court, town hall, The soldiers' barracks to Military police stations from fire brigade to hospital Road signs to newspapers This is officially tel abyad. Kurdish name of the city can be used but the main name is Tel abyad. Also I'm new to wikipedia. Personal attack was made to me on the talk page. I don't know how to report about this. someone called me "straw man" and belittled my view, there is no respect here also. Finally, some members are more than encyclopedic editing they are doin some manupulating things This is cant be overlooked, These persons are constantly making manipulation edits about Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Irani Kurds. Wikipedia should follow these ridicls edits. Absurdly, countries that bans Wikipedia sincerely speaking has piece of truth, this site should remain a world-wide encyclopedia, not a field of ethnic-political manipulation warfare place. Best RegardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Shadow4darkAgain as per talk, PYD/Kurds changed the name to Gire Spi. [1] As per source they use name Gire Spi and not Tell AbyadShadow4dark (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) References Tell Abyad discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I've now removed the quote in dispute. Also with a see talk page note. But not! the resulted in tensions part, which might be true, at least given the dispute about the quote. I hope someone will give me an answer at the talk page before reverting. I have started the discussions because it is stated that the filer should take part in every part of the process. Maybe the volunteers are waiting for this.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) The editor reverted and didn't give an answer at the talk page even though I have brought several sources to make my point. Just as the last time, 6 days ago, before I made the request for dispute resolution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's First StatementI'm sorry it has taken so long to volunteer, but I have not had a lot of time this week to spend on Wikipedia, and I'll be honest- I don't have a lot of time until after the 10th of July- but I will do my best to check in at least once a day to moderate this. I have read the summary of the case- and the talk page. I'm still somewhat confused as to what is going on. It looks like 1) the name of the town has changed by some citizens- but it is not clear if that was a lawful or legitimate change or not. 2) a quote from a newspaper was being argued about if it was appropriate for the page. Am I correct that these are the two main issues? What I would like to ask each of you now is 1) Are you willing to participate? 2) a 3 sentence or less summary of the problem and 3) 1 additional 1 sentence summarizing what you hope to accomplish by the end of the Dispute resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) Paradise Chronicle statement1) yes, I want to participate 2) the quote in dispute includes inaccuracies like "unilaterally" detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and the Kurds "formally" renamed Tal Abyad into a Kurdish name Gire Spi, to name just two here in the short summary. An other part of the dispute is the lack of cooperation of the two opposing parties at the talk page. I'd support withdrawing the quote, as it describes several inaccuracies. 3)I hope to come to an agreement with the other editors.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
عمرو بن كلثوم statementHi Nightenbelle and thanks for volunteering here. As you will soon discover, the discussion here is just the tip of the iceberg as the dispute extends to many articles. In brief, the Kurdish YPG militia have been encroaching on more and more Arab-majority land (sometimes where no Kurds live such as Deiir Ezzor) for the last nine years or so, and have been kurdifying the areas they capture, under the pretext of "liberating this land from IS terror group". See this map of their claimed rojava (western Kurdistan) in 2014, versus what they claim as rojava today (all are maps published by pro-Kurdish users/sources). We do have many reports on this, just to name a few: Amnesty, Forbes, Al Jazeera, the Nation, NYT, Washington Post, the Washington Institute, foreign minister of Russia Lavrov, Chatham House from 2015, Institute for the Study of War, Syria Direct. Just to give some earlier background, here is a map showing the suggested Kurdistan area in the Treaty of Sevres and here is a CIA map showing Kurdish-inhabited areas. Some editors here try to whitewash the YPG and its administrative arm, and sweep these reports under the rug. You can get a better idea by visiting the Rojava article, and seeing the Talk page there. Please also have a look at most of the references used there, mostly affiliated with Kurdish militias or openly pro-Kurdish (ANF, Hawar, Ruber, Kurdistan24, Rudaw). Even blogs and personal websites are used in that and similar articles to support propaganda-type claims. When reading those articles and their sources you would think yourself in Utopia. Sorry for my long statement here, but I've been frustrated with Wikipedia bias lack of oversight for years, so I am unleashing here. I have presented my arguments for the specific Washington Post quote above. I look forward to hearing what you think on this. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Konli17 statementShadow4dark statementYes i am looking for a compromise. 2 users want delete all good sources stuff include war crimes. But this is not NPOV. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Cengizsogutlu's statementModerator's 2nd StatementOkay, I'm still pretty darn confused about it all- I'm sorry that I'm having to play catch-up so much. This is, I think, why no one was willing to moderate this dispute because it is much more complicated than it looks and there are many layers of the dispute that are not apparent if you are unfamiliar with the history. But, maybe there is some benefit from an outside perspective.... No one is disputing that the Kurds are (at least) attempting to exert control over the area and are attempting to impose a new name? Then would it be acceptable for the article to include the quote saying "Some western news organizations reported the name change while locals are not so quick to accept the change" and then include a news source to support that? I'm assuming, since you are saying this is true, that there are reliable sources that support it beyond your own experience? Now as far as removing the war crimes- why are these in dispute? What are the reasons for having them removed? (I know you think its NPOV Shadow4dark- I mean what are the reasons the people are removing it are using?) they can't just be saying "I don't like it so I'm taking it out." Maybe by looking at those reasons we can find a path to compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Participant's StatementsI am not against that it is mentioned that the YPG is accused of war crimes. It is also stated in the article that the UN denies such claims. If a claim made it to the UN it is fair to be mentioned. War crimes as such, are also not included in the Washington Post quote in dispute. This is what I mean, with not cooperating in the discussion. The answers of the opponents are about anything else, but not about what the dispute is actually about. Let's talk about the mention that the Kurds "unilaterally" detached it from the Raqqa Governorate, which territory at the time wasn't even governed by a Governor, but by ISIS. And about the Tel Abyad plate at the entrance of the city. There it is mentioned Welcome to Tell Abiad. Here from 2 January 2020, here from September 2019, and here from 2015. It is the same plate the PYD used, which the Turks now use as well. There are hundreds of articles of the PYD/SDF mentioning Tell Abyad. here, here, here, these are all so called official PYD or SDF websites. The name of the city was not changed from Tel Abyad into Gire Spi, it was just allowed to write the Kurdish name as well. Please for the rest of the discussion,. focus on Latin/arab script, the name of the town as stated above, and then Tell Abyad "unilaterally" detached from Raqqa Governorate. "Unilaterally" is the term in dispute. Latin/arab script are well known to the Syrians from before the AANES rule, and a town governed by ISIS was sure not "unilaterally" detached from the Raqqa Governorate. If it was detached from anything at the year 2015, it was detached from ISIS ruled territory, and ISIS detached it from the Raqqa Governorate before. Tell Abyad was just made an own canton within the AANES. As it is stated in the article. Sorry for the long answer and the repetition of the arguments, but maybe not all involved in the dispute were able to read my statements at the Tell Abyad talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Moderator's 3rd statementOkay- so the war crimes issue is not part of this, then lets drop it and if the person discussing that issue wishes an DRN for that issue, they can open one. The word unilaterally comes from the Washington post quote correct? And that is a direct quote of what they said- so we really can't argue that point- they said what they said, true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant- is should the quote be included. It is in a section that contains many examples of how the Syrian civil war is being covered by journalists- so it seems appropriate to include this quote there- but perhaps you could also include a quote from a journalist that does not think the name change and detachment is so cut and dry. Then link the two by saying there is some disagreement among journalists about the current state of affairs? Would that work and give a more equal and fair representation? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) participants' statementsThank you Nightenbelle for your time and suggested resolution. On the war crimes topic, these were documented by many sources, and actually there was a Kurdish NGO based in Berlin (Kurdwatch) just monitoring that (from all sides) and can be browsed for YPG war crimes, regardless of what the UN says about one specific incident. However, as you rightly concluded, the war crimes are outside the scope of this discussion. I fully agree with your conclusion that the quote is a quote and should stay, and I hope Paradise Chronicle accept this fact. Back to the quote content, I hate to repeat my arguments above, but it seems from Paradise Chronicle last statement that they did not understand my previous statements. I clearly provided evidence above, the name change in BOTH Latin and Arabic scripts is clearly shown on new OFFICIAL signs used by the Kurdish YPG authorities and clearly shows removal of the original Arabic name, although some old signs (e.g., Welcome sign) still existed (per Paradise's claim). The unilateral detachment of the area is also clearly shown on YPG maps and administrative measures (elections, etc.). BTW, IS only changed the name of Raqqa "Governorate" to Raqqa "Wilaya" (as they did everywhere), but never changed the administrative border of the area per Paradise claim. Thank you very much again and I am happy with your conclusion. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's 4th statementuser:Paradise_Chronicle I'm sorry- I don't see any facebook or twitter sites being used as sources. I do see many different American news sources- but not many global or local sources. Look, I'm sorry- I'm failing to see how the quote relates to this conflict. What it appears to me- is an argument over whether the town has changed its name or not. IE- who has the right to decide the town's name. And that- is an ongoing situation that will not have a clear answer until the current state of affairs in Syria reaches its conclusion, or at least, until more time has passed. So here is my proposal- Say that some sources are saying that a name change occurred. Cite those sources. Say that the change has not been accepted by all parties- cite sources proving this. And then everyone walk away from the article for a few months. When you return- evaluate what changes have happened in that time. The simple truth is- there is not going to be a clean cut answer to this problem right now. Both sides are arguing a war that is still being fought, and that is not the purpose of WP. We are here to be an encyclopedia- a storehouse of facts, definitions, and explanations. And when it comes to culture- it is extremely difficult if not impossible to define culture as it is being shaped. That is what you are all trying to do, and I think you are wasting valuable time and energy doing so here. I wish we could right the wrongs of the world here on Wikipedia, or find solutions to all the problems- but we cannot, and even if we could, we are not a platform to disseminate those solutions. What we can do- is state the facts clearly and concisely and leave analysis to historians, social scientists, and journalists. So thats my statement. I hope you all will agree to it, if not, I'm afraid I will have to end my participation here and ask another volunteer to step in. The reading alone for this dispute is much much more than I have time for at the moment. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Participants' statementsHi Nightenbelle, here is the twitter source, and here is the facebook source Amr provided in the discussion here at the DNR and at the Tell Abyad talk page. Have you seen any other sources showing only Gire Spi? And the quote doesn't only include renamed, but also "formally" renamed, and formally it is then, when formal/official documents, plates etc. say Gire Spi, which is clearly not the case. And sorry, it is not only the name which is in dispute. Also the Latin/Arab script, and the detachment from the Governorate/Wilaya are an issue. The only time someone answered me to the latin/arab script here at the DRN, it is with a facebook source which he thinks can counter multiple official sources. These Facebook and Twitter sources would never come through on the article itself, and they shouldn't come through here, either. Do you use Facebook and twitter to argue in a controversial claim which has multiple sources claiming otherwise? If you think an other volunteer is better suited for the dispute, you are welcome to invite him/her.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Bottom line, everything in the Washington Post quote is true and is echoed by Fabrice Balanche, an expert on the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. Balanche says on Tel Abyad, copied from here:
You are simply wasting everyone's time here. I can keep going forever, but I have other more useful things to do. Thanks Nightenbelle again for your time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) I have no objections if Paradise Chronicle adds new paragraph. Which says, "however it is disputed by Kurds and some journalists" Shadow4dark (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Lost Cause of the Confederacy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | My hope was that this could be worked out in a friendlier manner. That's why we're here: DRN handles content issues when conduct is not sufficient to form a consensus between all editors. I don't mean "conduct" as in breaches of WP:CIVILITY like NPA or anything like that; it's usually frustration that bleeds into the discussion. Epa101 -- also frustrated -- makes a good faith request for DRN assistance. I may be biased, but opening a DR case is (in my most humble of opinions) an excellent sign of good faith.
@Epa101: you asked for a verdict. We don't provide verdicts, because we can't make (nor want to make) binding content agreements. I assume you know this (it's a core principle of the project) so I'll take it on faith that whatever "verdict" I provide is sufficient to end the dispute: The edit is at least WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR. From what I can tell, the edit would need to have read:
One is not enough. As for WP:OR: I don't know what's in Gevinson. I don't know if Gevinson extrapolates from that quote, nor what the extrapolation would be. I do suspect that anything else in Gevinson would have proven more valuable than just the quote that it gives. If my suspicion is true, then Gevinson is not robust at all; it's serving as a sort of citation-by-proxy, exactly as useful as citing the newspaper directly, and arguably less honest. But I can see why it at least appears more robust. I may be wrong. Maybe Gevinson is more useful, and we can avoid the OR concerns. Even so: WP:UNDUE is sufficient. --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC) One last thing, and pardon my own frustration: Please, please do not tell me when to open or close cases. There's a reason this case was never opened in the first place (despite appearances): The conclusion here is pretty cut-and-dry, but I need the room to make that clear where others have failed. Please allow me to work with what I'm given. (I realize it's preeeetty unfair of me to assume that you could know that... I have no arguments against that). Just, I dunno... have more faith in DRN? We're not gonna try for a compromise against policy. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Epa101 on 20:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC).
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 feel that other editors are deliberately showing a one-sided narrative in the section for the film "Song of the South". I initially deleted the section all together, which the had only one reference that did not mention the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" anywhere. This text was restored by another user with some new (more robust) references. I then added an alternative view from a book published by University of California Press. As an academic publisher, this must count as a reliable source. This was removed with a rather rude comment in the edits. I have since discussed this on the talk page. My edits have been misrepresented and are not being discussed in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on civility. I feel that this is a violation of the Wikipedia policy on NPOV as the criteria for a reliable source is not being applied consistently on the article: if the references from IndieWire and the San Francisco Journal are sufficiently reliable, then the book from the University of California Press should be as well, but I feel that other editors are applying an unfair standard to favour one point of view over another. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have warned the user about civility. They mocked this and invited me to report them to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I am aware that it is not sufficiently serious for that yet, but I think that a DRN might be useful at this point. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Can you please ask Jorm to be civil? Can you also make a ruling for consistent application of being a "reliable source" in this context? I do not think that the current application is consistent, but I would like to hear your verdict on this subject. I would also not be averse to deletion of the section for Song of the South all together, if it is decided that there are no robust sources to link it to the "Lost cause of the Confederacy", which is what I originally argued. Summary of dispute by JormThis editor is trying to insert a single undue opinion. There are no modern historians who believe that "Song of the South" is not an attempt at 'lost cause' revisionism. Opinions to the contrary are not due. No other editors support this. Apparently I am also "uncivil" because I said this needed a talk page discussion. It certainly does not require dispute resolution. That's all I'm going to say on this matter but SummerPhDv2.0 may wish to expand further.--Jorm (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Lost Cause of the Confederacy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#cite_note-who-1
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion on talk page by the editor who filed the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Mypc1 on 23:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
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 Used the "Talk" feature I have provided updated scientific references about the conditions that affect many individuals, but some user keeps on deleting ubbiased sciencific refernces. I provided a number of published sources to back up my edits, but some person keeps on reverting them.. This is a problem because the views of this person are biased and are not benefiting people who come to educate themselves about this condition. Please suggest how to deal with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&stable=0
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tried to resolve and improve the article, but the other user just delets my improvements. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide the unbiased data so inidividuals will educate themselves and be well informed. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#cite_note-who-1 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No discussion on talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Mypc1 on 00:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
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 Provided updated research How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Used the talk feature and requested the edits to be done. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Publish all points of view and have users make their own decisions. Summary of dispute by AcroterionPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by XavexgoemPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think this new editor intends to be WP:POINTy by adding me (he's new, I think), but out of fairness I won't close this time around. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please update the article to take all points into account. Including the latest studies. Let readers review all sources and make their own "*Educated*" decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypc1 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, I just began contributing (editing) today, although have used your knowledge-base WIKI pages in the past.
Thank you for the tips. Very much appreciate your suggestions. Also, thank you for the tip about heavy scrutiny of this topic, how do we as contributors provide all points of view and let people make educated decisions? I am open to suggestions and do not mean to create hostility. We need to shed the light on all the research and not just WHO (which has been discredited & criticized based on their responses to the latest pandemic, but I don't mean to open another "pandora's box.") Mypc1 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, your comments made sense, but we need to look at all of them. For example, Keiser Permanente Study at https://spotlight.kaiserpermanente.org/new-kaiser-permanente-study-provides-evidence-of-health-risks-linked-to-electromagnetic-field-exposure/ and studies provided by Medical Doctors at Physicians for Safe Technology, https://mdsafetech.org/. Also, by Stephen T. Sinatra, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.N., C.N.S., C.B.T., is a board-certified cardiologist at https://heartmdinstitute.com/detox-toxins/emf/emf-research-studies/.Mypc1 (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC) By the way, I'm a very versed individual and yes, other topics do interest me. However, what is the point of further contributing on this platform if only certain individuals, who do not look at all the sources, screen out and squash others.Mypc1 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Santa Claus
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN does not accept disputes pending in other dispute resolution forums such as RFC. If after the RFC runs its course in 30 days no consensus has been reached and the dispute still continues, you may refile here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (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 Dispute regarding the following issues in the lead section of the article: 1. Should the lead section use the word "legendary", "imaginary", "mythical", or something else? 2. Should the lead section include a paragraph that notes that the role of Santa Claus is fulfilled by parents? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Started this RfC: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide opinions from a wide variety of people regarding the issue on the RfC. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kringle ClausPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DonFBPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Santa Claus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | other editors have an established consensus already and are choosing to stick with that consensus rather than participate in DRN Nightenbelle (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For seven years, a section about medical care was above a section about condoms. In May, AlmostFrancis switched their order. I objected and reverted. AlmostFrancis then reverted back so I opened an RfC but it generated little discussion. I believe there is WP:NOCONSENSUS and the order should revert back to the last stable version, but AlmostFrancis believes there is a consensus for his version. Discussion on talk does not seem to be making any progress. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It would be useful to have outside voices help determine what to do both in the short term (i.e. is there a consensus or not?) and the long term (i.e. help us arrive at a solid consensus if there isn't one already). Summary of dispute by AlmostFrancisFrom its inception through to 2013 and from 2017 until January of this year the content on contraception was first in both the body and the lead. In fact, until January of this year contraception content has always been first in the body, though admitedly, in 2013 someone plopped the health care section between the intro to contraceptives and the details :). In January, Slugger removed the background section on contraceptives, therefore moving the healthcare section up and switched the content in the lead. This was done without any edit summary to let people know he had done so and was part of a 20-ish spree of edits most of which did no have edit summaries. You can't fairly claim silent consensus when you either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated a reorg. Once people noticed all the changes that Slugger has made there has been push back so I see no reason to consider the January reorg to have consensus and therefor do not really think WP:NOCONSENSUS demands returning to January.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS discussionHi, my name is Nightenbelle and I would be happy to mediate this dispute. I have read the ENTIRE talk page on the article, and I have a few requests before we begin discussion. Please also invite the other three editors who are actively involved in current edits on that page- to be clear- that would be Contraldo, WhatamIdoing, and Roscelese. I'm not sure why Contraldo and WhatamIdoing were not invited in the first place since they were actively involved in that discussion. I am asking you invite Roscelese because they have had strong opinions on other edits and if they would like to be included here I think it would be a courtesy. My second request is to keep comments brief, professional and to the point. Make sure you answer all questions clearly and concisely. The first thing to do is be sure enough editors are willing to participate- So if you are willing to participate would you please respond here indicating that and give me a brief (less tan 2000 character) summary of what the problem is and what you would like to see happen. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's Second StatementOkay folks, we are already coming up against the same problem that occurs on the talk page repeatedly. First there are passive agressive statements, ranom information/ comments that have no place in the current conversation, and no one answering what was asked. So- lets focus here. If you would rather solve another problem- you need to start your own case on this page. This dispute is about the order of sections. We will not switch from that topic to another at this point. As far as your question on WP:NOCONSENSUSThere has been some confusion the talk page discussions. Slugger- you are right, it is not necessarily the most popular option. It is the option that is the best compromise according to the majority of people. I'm putting that in my own words, of course. One person does not get to decide what the best compromise is, the majority of people involved need to, with as little personal bias as possible, decide that. It appears that you have tried to force your decision on others several times on the talk page by trying to make the decision on the best option by yourself. Unfortunately that is not how things are supposed to work. that is bordering on WP:Tendentious_editing. Now I don't think that is your intention, or you wouldn't be here trying to work something out. But be aware that passion, on all sides, is in danger of overrunning your ability to compromise. The goal here, for me, is to keep you all focused on one task. As WhatamIdoing said- to perhaps model how these conversations should go to help in future ones on the talk page. Now- the questions I need answered from each of you are: 1) Are you willing to participate in a DRN about the order of sections on the page. and if so 2) What would you like to see happen in this specific situation? Please answer ONLY those two questions in the space provided and hold further discussion until after at least 3 people have agreed to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Participant's Answers1) Yes, I am willing. 2) I want to a) understand why reverting back to the original order is not appropriate per NOCON seeing as there is a lack of either a consensus or even a majority and b) come to a consensus on how to order the article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
2) While I was originally planning to partake, which is why I added a summary, Slugger is now using this process to stop forward movement on the article. This is unfair to both the article and other participants so this should probably be closed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's 3rd StatementFrom what I can see- the only person willing to participate is Slugger, the others either are not involved or feel this should be closed. So, I will close this tomorrow- unless someone other than Slugger requests that it stays open and is willing to participate. HOWEVER- Slugger O'Toole I need to be perfectly clear here- and I need you to understand something. IF this DRN moves forward- it is NOT an excuse you can use to stop others from editing any other section of the article. the DRN process does not halt edits- although we do ask that edits not be made to the section in question. What's more- we do not exist to decide or overturn consensus. I understand you are not happy that the current consensus is against your opinion- but that is what the majority of editors have decided is the best compromise. You do not WP:OWN this article, and using this process or any other to try to force others to conform to your opinion of how an article should look is not acceptable. If this process moves forward- YOU are going to have to give up ground and compramise as well. We are not going to tell everyone else to support your POV. Frankly- the article is very heavily skewed to the pro-Cathoilic side already. Now I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm not pro Catholic... I truly am neutral in this area.... But I do recognize that the article sounds almost like it comes from a Catholic magazine as opposed to a history book or encyclopedia. The truth is not black and white- but shades of grey, and trying to erase that grey... whitewash if you will- is not the purpose of Wikipedia. So... I ask again Slugger O'Toole, are you truly willing to work within this process to move towards WP:NPOV with your fellow editors- or should this go to another board? And if Slugger O'Toole is willing to work towards WP:NPOV, AlmostFrancis are you willing to move forward with this process towards that goal? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Participants' statements
|