Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 192
 | 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 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 |
Edward Colston
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for at least two reasons. First, there has already been a Request for Comments, which normally is the last step in dispute resolution. It failed to find even rough consensus, because the closer said that it was a deadlock. This leaves very little reason to think that moderated discussion will reach either an agreement or a compromise. That would have been reason enough to close the case in advance. However, second, a volunteer was brave enough and helpful enough to try to moderate, and moderation failed. In my opinion, the failure of the moderation was not because she was the wrong or biased moderator. It is because moderated discussion was not going to work, and it didn't work. There are two main ways forward at this point, and a few others that are not likely to work. First, one of the editors can propose a compromise, and can then use an RFC to see if the compromise is accepted. Second, the editors can agree to disagree, to recognize that this will not be resolved in the next few months. A third way, which is less likely to resolve anything, would be to report one or more of the editors to WP:ANI; if an editor has been disruptive (either uncivil or edit-warring, they may be topic-banned, but there would still probably be a deadlock. Fourth, arbitration can be requested, but the ArbCom will probably say that this is a content dispute and ArbCom does not resolve content disputes. If anyone has another idea, they can try it, but the second course, leaving the non-consensus alone, may work. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This is to seek a policy-based recommendation, on the sole issue of whether Colston should be neutrally described, in the opening sentence of his article, as a "philanthropist". Edward Colston was a C17/18 merchant who, in life and through bequests, supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol and elsewhere, and who in later centuries has been commemorated in various ways, especially in Bristol, for example with a statue and the naming of a major entertainment venue. In recent decades it has become clear that he was involved, directly or indirectly, in the Atlantic slave trade, and as a result of the subsequent publicity his reputation has been questioned. There is no doubt that he made charitable donations that benefited the people of Bristol, and as a result many reliable sources (some of which pre-date the more recent controversies) describe him as a "philanthropist". The issue is whether he should be described now, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, as a "philanthropist", given his acknowledged involvement in the slave trade. There has been extensive discussion among editors over definitions of the word "philanthropist", and alternatives such as "benefactor", or wordings such as "he was described in the past as a philanthropist..." have been suggested. Opinion has been divided among editors at that page, with a majority favouring continued use of "philanthropist" in the opening sentence. The closing admin at the recent WP:RFC here concluded: "This conversation is effectively in a deadlock...."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 2#Request for comment on opening paragraph Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 2#The word 'philanthropist' How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It appears unlikely that further discussion on that talk page will lead to a consensus. There is now a need to progress this to the next level of dispute resolution. The sole issue to be addressed should be the basis, in policy and guidance, for the wording of the opening paragraph of the article. Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenIt seems to be the consensus was 2 to 1 for inclusion. Thus its hard to see how there was deadlock other than a refusal to accept a decision some users did not like.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) As others have said, this rather does have a wiff of wp:forumshop about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Can we stop reiterating the same arguments, the volunteers can read the RFC and see what was said. Lets just make out pitches and let new eyes judge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FivebyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ReconditeRodentPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GPinkertonThere is absolutely nothing about the word philanthropist that disqualifies Colston or anyone else whose ill-gotten gains were laundered into good repute. There is nothing, nothing about its meaning, usage, or etymology that suggests anything but charitable or civic donation. This suggestion that someone must be morally pure to be considered a philanthropist is nonsense based on nonsense. See the RfC for more detail. GPinkerton (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CassiantoUnbelievable to see this here. So we are to ignore the reliable sources that rightfully describe Colston as a "philanthropist", and we shall ignore the community consensus at the recent RfC that favours the use of "philanthropist". And still the woke among us are getting their knickers in a twist about a positive word being attributed to someone who did some bad in his life (by today's standards). This "resolution" smacks of the filer being an out and out sore loser. What happens if this fails, ANI? ArbCom? The supreme bloody court? CassiantoTalk 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Games of the WorldPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DeFactoThis dispute arose (IMHO) because a recent event (the toppling of a his statue in Bristol on 7 June 2020) brought a lot of new attention to this article. Some of editors who were new to the article only knew about Colston what they had seen in recent media reports about him, a lot of which concentrated on scandals surrounding his relationship with the slave trade, and not on his other business interests and his historic and influential generosity towards the people of Bristol. Naturally, seeing him described as a 'philanthropist' stuck in the craw of those who only knew of him as an immoral beast. Whereas the concept of him being philanthropic had been described as an established fact in the article right from its inception in November 2004, after 7 June it became the trigger for much turmoil and disruption to the article. What we need to decide here now (after the original talkpage discussion and then an RfC failed to deliver a consensus to remove the word) is whether (bearing in mind the modern British use of the word 'philanthropist' from the OED given below) he was indeed a philanthropist. My view is that he was, quite literally, and that to expunge that fact from the article would be to fly in the face of what Wikipedia stands for as described in pillar 1 and pillar 2. There is nothing in the definition of the word precluding its application to those who are later (300 years after his death) judged, by the day's 300-year-more-refined standards, to have acted immorally. We can, of course, include a discussion of modern-day opinions about his less savoury (by today's tastes) activities, but we shouldn't indulge in WP:OR and allow that to replace or even distort the reliably-sourced and verifiable facts of what he was and how he was admired in his own times. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground, not an anarchy, and not a newspaper. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GoodDayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
If Colston's actions meet the definition of a philanthropist, then shouldn't we mention that he was a philanthropist, in the lead? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GovvyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Beating around the bushes again? From one board to another board, I feel like this dispute has become tiresome. I agree this is WP:FORUMSHOP and disruptive of a lot of peoples time. I was for inclusion, words have meanings, we either use the correct words or not at all. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by The LandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The essential issue is this: Is someone still a 'philanthropist' if the source of the funds they give away is immoral? In this debate, I have not seen any reliable source saying that 'philanthropy' depends on funds being acquired in a manner that would today be considered moral and lawful. There are crooks, scammers, monopolists, and racists who are 'philanthropists'. In common English usage this seems not to matter. What matters is that you are very rich and give large sums of money to charitable causes. It is a form of charitable giving that is only available to the extremely wealthy. The Greek roots which mean 'loving of mankind' is really neither here nor there. This is a matter of some regret to me personally (especially as I work in charity fundraising), but it is how the word is used in the English language, and we should not seek to break new ground about it on Wikipedia. It may be that usage changes and in future people are more cautious about who gets to be called 'philanthropist'. If that changes than so can we, but I don't believe it has yet. The Land (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JzGI think Deb sums this up well. When "philanthropist" can apply to Bill Gates, Mortimer Sackler and David Koch, spanning the gamut from saving millions of lives to funding the arts through profits from addiction to funding an entire ecosystem of think tanks devoted to covert political funding and promotion of environmental destruction for personal gain, it loses any encyclopaedic utility. Colston spent money gained off the back of slavery on his pet political and artistic causes. This is definitely at the Koch end of things, and it's gratuitously offensive to Black readers to see him described in terms that really make sense only in the context of the casual racism of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. The anthros who were the target of his phila were exclusively white and usually right-wing. Bit of a problem. We don't need to use the term philanthropist. We can say that in later life he supported political and other causes. Guy (help!) 12:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Serial Number 54129Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DebFrom my point of view, the idea that Colston can be described neutrally as a "philanthropist" is flawed, because I don't consider "philanthropist" to be a neutral word. It's an outmoded term that is seldom used today because its actual meaning is both obscure and open to interpretation. It seems to me to be unnecessary to insist on the word when other, less controversial, descriptions are available. Deb (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PincreteThe sources are clear that he was a philanthropist - by which they mean little more than that he donated substantial amounts of his money to 'good causes' in his home area. The arguments that you have to be some kind of all-round-good-guy, to be a 'humanist' or to satisfy modern notions of what are acceptable ways to accumulate wealth are pure WP:OR. Many 20th century 'philanthropists' would fail that kind of scrutiny - so someone from an age when slave owning and trading was legal, practised in most parts of the world and widely endorsed by thinkers, churchmen and politicians, doesn't stand a chance by modern standards. I'm sorry, but underlying this dispute is whether one seeks to record, in the hope of understanding, or simply to condemn people of previous ages who did things which we now may find inexplicably cruel. Of course the recent controversy over his reputation should be included later in the lead, but what some seem to want to do is to rewrite the historical record and also impose their own definition of 'philanthropist', disregarding the balance of sources. I am not wedded to this particular word, but it is concise and is the usual term and the one most widely used in RS. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Darwin Naz1. History records noted this character for his donations to charitable institutions. 2. Describing him as a philanthropist does not make him a good person (there are even instances today when philanthropy is used as a tool to curry favor), therefore, the use of philanthropist and slave trader in one sentence to describe a person is not contradictory nor using the term philanthropist cancel his involvement in slavery. 4. Our feelings and sensibilities (for those who are offended with the use of this term) as Wikipedia editors do not matter in the way the content is presented. 5. Also noting that the entire three-paragraph lede has been peppered with information linking him to slavery. Surely, the reader gets the point. So what is the fuss? Darwin Naz (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Michael F 1967Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SchroCatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The RfC has shown no consensus to overturn the WP:STATUS QUO, so why is this point still being pushed? Do we now ignore the decisions we don't like and just keep pushing until we get the answer we want? 1. Colson was a philanthropist. It's the reason a statue was raised for him in the first place. The fact he obtained his money through an extremely unpleasant method does not stop the fact he also gave away large amounts. We can't rewrite history to change what he was or what he did, and we can't change the definition of a word because it is applied to someone we don't like. One part of what Colston did in life comes under most reasonable definitions of the term.
Summary of dispute by Spy-ciclePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by S Marshall
Summary of dispute by HalfdanRagnarssonTo begin with, why is this here? It was settled by more than two-to-one, and very resoundingly, at the RfC on the talk page. Still, I'll detail why I voted to retain the description of him as a philanthropist. Because he was. Colston established several charitable institutions and funds that serve many in Bristol to this day, and played a significant role in the transformation of Bristol into what it is today. Many reliable sources were given throughout the discussion for this. As for any favouritism in his philanthropy, several editors explained that the word need not mean goodness alone, and how nearly all philanthropy leans towards the preferences of the individual in question. No one denies the fact that he was a slave-trader, or that it was wrong. It was an evil thing, and the article details his involvement in it sufficiently. However, one must keep in mind that this was in an era where slavery was widely condoned, and there were few abolitionists to speak of. While a substantial portion of his wealth came from it, it was not the only thing he traded in. What was evil in him does not blot out what was good in him - neither fact can be erased. I have given the analogy of Caesar in the discussion. Coming to the objections. Not only were they in a minority, their arguments were incoherent too - effectively, "since his wealth came from slave-trading, the money wasn't philanthropy"(?!) or "he wasn't really a philanthropist" (no he was, easy to prove) to gawd-help-us discussions over the meaning of the word itself. A quick moment of rational thinking dispels them all. Finally, I must mention that slavery is an evil that has been present throughout human history. We cannot proscribe all actions of historical figures for their links to slavery, because too many are tainted with it - from the ancients to Bonaparte, including a number of rebellious colonists and half the figures of the Empire era. If we start attacking them solely based on slavery and the other wrongs they committed, we'll soon end up hating our own history - though I suspect that it is what the radical mobs (both online and on-the-ground) are aiming at. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BonusballsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HAL333I'm a little confused as to why this was brought to dispute resolution, I thought this was already resolved via a consensus in the rfc. Someone can be a philanthropist, regardless of whether they committed grossly immoral acts. Although not quite as horrid as slave-trading, robber-barons gained wealth through destroying smaller competitors and abusing workers. Many of their charitable contributions were more an attempt to preserve their name and build a legacy than actually improve people's lives. Despite gaining wealth through unethical means and not even caring about the underprivileged, I would still characterize them as philanthropists, as Wikipedia does in their articles. As long as the article makes adequate acknowledgements of his participation in slavery, I think it is safe to include the term. I also disagree with those who wish to change it to "benefactor": I personally think that that has a more positive connotation than philanthropist. If someone can obtain several reliable sources which dispute the title "philanthropist" and list an alternative, I may be willing to change my mind. ~ HAL333 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by NedrutlandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CamipcoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by High TinkerPhilanthropy is defined "an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes", and a philanthropist is a person who engages in philanthropy. Edward Colston indisputably did this. The meaning of the word is not a naive sum of the translations of it's Greek roots. The most common meaning of the word in a rich person who contributes to charity, the oft quoted "love of humanity" is far second in terms of meaning. The suggested alternative "benefactor" does not scan.
Summary of dispute by TavinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Di cee21Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Edward Colston discussionTBH: I thought the matter was closed. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Moderator's First StatementI was halfway through closing this when I decided that I was willing to attempt to mediate this dispute. With this many editors its going to be difficult at best. So, I'm going to ask that those involved please be respectful, use short, concise responses, and try to keep focus on the topic at hand. As I see it, the issue here is the inclusion of the word Philanthropist. And part of that disagreement is the definition of the word. Here is what I propose: First- I would like to see what different definitions of Philanthropist we are working with. Next, can we find any common ground among all the definitions, Third- negotiate the contested parts of the definition and see if we can find a compromise, Fourth, decide if Colston fits that definition, and Fifth- how to word the inclusion or exclusion of the word Philanthropist in the article. I expect this to be a somewhat lengthy process, but I think that plan could work if you all are willing. So... step one- what are we working with. I want to ask that all definitions of philanthropist be listed below- I'm going to ask that we not debate merits of the definitions here. All I am asking is that if you do not see the definition you support listed- that you add it. We will discuss them once we have collected them. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
List of Potential Definitions of Philanthropist
So (in essence) there is not one dictionary or personal definition. So this is a bit of a blind alley.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically, Donald Trump meets the dictionary definition of a philanthropist: [6]. Are we all happy for his Wikipedia article to refer to him that way? And if not, why not? Deb (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's Second StatementWell since my stating that historical sources have used the word philanthropist apparently means I'm biased (No... I can just read- the word appears in sources- As to whether it remains accurate or not- I can see both sides of the argument so my opinion is neutral) I'm out. Anyone else want to tackle this? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
At the nub of this is just what many of the concerns above has been about, a clear statement that only one result will be tolerated. That this will just be dragged on, and on, until the community is bludgeoned into acquiescence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Please hold Discussion until a volunteer steps upSince there is not currently a mediator, I am going to request that discussions be kept to a minimum until one re-opens this case. Just to keep things from getting out of hand. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
|
American Descendants of Slavery
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for a couple of reasons- MRHCK01 claims his edit requests are being ignored due to his COI, but every suggestion he has made- has been responded to with reasons why it cannot be done and suggestions for how to improve the suggested edits. So your edits are not being rejected out of hand, but are not meeting WP guidelines for RS, and NPOV reasons. the DRN cannot be used to force editors to put your edits into the page, you can continue to work with other editors to refine your suggested edits until they meet community standards, but we will not force the issue here at the DRN. Your COI does make other editors question when your edits are NPOV- so please make extra careful to be non-biased when suggesting edits because of that. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have been disallowed to make edits for the American Descendants of Slavery article, even after taking every precaution to draft a thorough, properly cited selection. I have been flagged with COI, even while the article is under semi-protection. I would like for my edit requests to, at minimum, be judged on the content, veracity, and verifiability of the sources of that content before being rejected out-of-hand, and for the last two weeks, it has been just that. Two weeks ago, I was initially discouraged to edit as I lodged a complaint in the Talk: section of this article, as I was scolded by Doug Weller to follow format and process. Over the last couple of weeks I've worked to educate myself on how Wikipedia works, and I drafted a fair, balanced, encyclopedia-worthy selection for revision...but it was subsequently denied by the same Mr. Weller before other editors were called in. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:American_Descendants_of_Slavery#NPOV, Talk:American_Descendants_Of_Slavery#Semi-protected_Edit_Request, Talk:American_Descendants_Of_Slavery#Their_skepticism_concerning_immigration_has_attracted_criticism_and_the_suggestion_that_they_are_dividing_African_Americans How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I cannot divine the reasoning of why Doug Weller, a person with a long history of service on Wikipedia, has especially given an appearance of gatekeeping & seeking to maintain a slanted narrative about the American Descendants of Slavery. However that is what is happening in effect. What I seek, even as there are "COI concerns," that edit requests be judged, accurately, on their content and source. It is not happening now. Summary of dispute by Doug WellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rsk6400Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Deacon VorbisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TruthSayer21Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Joy Mary LeePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
American Descendants of Slavery discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Vowel length
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. While the filing editor has made a few comments on the article talk page, there has been nothing resembling a discussion, let alone a lengthy and inconclusive discussion. Resume discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Vowel length. A new discussion can be opened here if necessary, but often discussion on the article talk page is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 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 A user named Nealmcgrath has been waging a campaign on this article to make the point that the article is wrong about long and short vowels in English. I have tried to explain on the Talk page that his interventions relate to a separate issue (the use of the terms 'long' and 'short' in classroom teaching materials for reading) but he doesn't seem to get the point. I have removed some of his material from the article because it is unsupported by references and is in my opinion off the point. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk: Vowel length. Section headed "Traditional definitions are WRONG" How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Suggest writing a new section in the article setting out this user's views, with proper support from references and advice from other users. Vowel length discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Not enough discussion on talk page. DRN is quite premature. Try WP:3O In addition, filing editor needs to list all editors involved and notify them on their talk page. Additionally in addition This editor is now under a partial block for this page for edit warring. Please let your block expire, have a discussion on the talk page BEFORE you edit, then try the 3rd opinion noticeboard. If those dont work, you are welcome to open a new DRN case at that time. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview On 19 July, Haqqın.az (a news website tied to the Azerbaijani security services per Eurasianet), made a report, claiming that Serbia transported arms to Armenia via Georgia. Which was then confirmed by Azerbaijan's deputy foreign minister Khalaf Khalafov (http://archive.is/DPhoF). GevHev4 started removing this information without any consensus reached, and with a deadlock in the talk page. These claims aren't from some low-budget troll sites, it is a claim confirmed by an Azerbaijani official. I request a third opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes#Claims of Georgian, Serbian and Sirian involvement How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Showing that these claims do actually carry importance. 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Bob Crane
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | You must make a good faith effort to resolve this yourself on the talk page. Exchanging 1 comment each is not a good faith effort to solve. I suggest justifying why you think the material is of encyclopedic value and see why they disagree. If, after you have talked more, you still can't find a solution- you may re-open a DRN case here. However, when you do, all involved editors must be listed and notified on their talk page. Finally- conversations on personal talk pages are not considered discussing the issue- discussions should take place on the article talk page so any interested editor can participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:FlightTime, who seems to have admin privileges, deleted important improvements to Bob Crane, en masse without with giving any good reason, barraging me with false accusations via canned templates, abusing the trust bestowed by this community. There is no response by User:FlightTime except deletion and templates. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ask FlightTime what precisely he finds as trivia, with fact correction, and look to see if there is a pattern of biography cleansing in FlightTime's history. Summary of dispute by FlightTimePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bob Crane discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Cochin Jews
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor did not notify the other editor, 72 hours after being reminded to notify them. Resume discussion on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 13 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 passage "Saint Thomas, an Aramaic-speaking Jew from the Galilee region of Israel and one of the disciples of Jesus, is believed to have come to Southern India in the 1st century, in search of the Jewish community there. It is possible that the Jews who became Christians at that time were absorbed by what became the Nasrani Community in Kerala." This passage should be deleted however, Jossyys disagrees. This is pure speculation and irrelevant to Cochin Jews. There are no references to the Cochin Jews being converted to any religion by any scholars who have studied the Cochin Jews. Many groups especially in Christian groups in Kerala speculate on their links to Jews due to known similarities in some the practices of the Abrahamic religions. However this does not constitute a connection to Cochin Jews. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cochin_Jews#Remove_Christian_speculation How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A third party opinion on someone knowledgeable on the matter. Summary of dispute by JossyysPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cochin Jews discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Times Radio
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DR pending in another DR process. DRN does not accept cases pending in other forums. Moreover, El_C said: " The evidence was neither "clearly" presented, by either one of you, nor did it display harassment, from either one of you. Now leave one another alone. DRN is probably the worse idea for you two I could think of. Stop intensively interacting with one another. And no — users who participate in an RfC do not get to close these, obviously! And RfCs are meant to last ~30 days, not less than a week. Enough, GDBarry and Funky Snack, before either one of you find yourselves blocked. Go.Do.Something.Else. El_C 09:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)" — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A user wishes to include non-notable presenters in a list of presenters on Times Radio. This has been referred to dispute resolution. User has also been referred to WP:LISTPEOPLE. This states notable people can be added to a list. However, WP:WPRS states "a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added". From previous experience of lists, only those who are "notable" should be included in a list of presenters. User has also suggested just because someone is on a national radio station, they automatically become notable which has been dismissed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Consensus on whether non-notable presenters should be included on a list of presenters. Summary of dispute by GDBarryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have withdrawn from the discussion on the talk page, and I have already made it clear on the talk page that I have withdrawn. I have no idea why Funky Snack is pursuing this issue. The matter is for others to decide as far as I'm concerned. GDBarry (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Andysmith248Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Times Radio discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Woman
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed without prejudice against refiling. Sending back to talk page for additional discussion. Other editors have joined and discussion has occurred there since this was initially filed and that discussion needs a chance to work itself out. Can be refiled here if needed, but filing party needs to remember to list everyone who has participated in the talk page discussion AND to notify each of them of the filing here by leaving a note on their user talk pages. See the instructions at the top of the page for an easier way to do that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:50, 22 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 basic issue of the dispute is about the leading being not precise nor open defined. The article is about the gender "Woman" but it is equated with the biological sex. Now sources are exchanged and there is no perspective that the dispute can be settled with sources.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Woman#Differentiating between gender and sex in lead How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It would be allready helped if a wider group of editors would join, but most importantly the different sources should be integrated. Woman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Hyksos, the Exodus
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. One of the primary participants in the dispute has indicated that this does not belong here which we will take as a statement that they do not wish to participate. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is voluntary and without their participation, it is unlikely that a lasting consensus could be formed here. If the filing party still wishes to pursue dispute resolution, they should consider one or more requests for comment after carefully reading and following the instructions at that link and noting that the more narrowly-defined a RFC is, the more likely that it will not stall out. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:50, 25 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 I have made edits to the articles Hyksos and the Exodus from mainstream, highly respected, scholarly sources which is stating the majority view of scholars in this discipline on the origin of the first Israelites. What I have entered is almost verbatim from the sources. The link to the sources (Faust, p.467-477 and Shaw, 2002, p.313) cite multiple other sources demonstrating it is the view of most scholars. Another two editors are removing this without reason, and without providing a source to the contrary. They seem to be doing nothing but POV pushing and reverting without explanation. Lastly, one user is removing content I added to a direct quote from Manfred Bietak without any explanation provided. Not once. The quote, as it was, was shown out of context because it did not include all of the paragraph and flow of text being quoted. I want to follow the correct procedures to resolve this, and I am using perfectly valid sources and content. The other two users are engaging in bullying, POV pushing behaviour. Please help.
I have tried to discuss this on: Talk:Book_of_Exodus#Inclusion_of_Faust_material Talk:Hyksos#Unacceptable_reverts_by_Ermenrich How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am being bullied by a POV pushing editor, along with one or two others, despite the content I am adding being perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies. The content I added is almost verbatim from a highly respected scholarly source, and is the view of most scholars. The other editors have provided no source rejecting this, just their own personal opinions. I do not want to violate 3RR either. I need help from others with knowledge about policies, and unbiased views on the content. Summary of dispute by ErmenrichPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This doesn’t belong here. A single editor is being opposed by multiple ones as can be seen at talk:Book of Exodus#Addition of Faust material and talk:Hyksos#Unacceptable reverts by Ermenrich. He just doesn’t seem to be able to accept that he doesn’t have consensus for his change. He appears to be wp:forum shopping—Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by पाटलिपुत्रPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hyksos, the Exodus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
FBI files on Michael Jackson
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. After discussion, a rough consensus has been reached on the wording of the section that was in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 23 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 This is a complicated issue, with more facets than can be covered in this summary. This is about the FBI files on Michael Jackson that were released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009. It's important to understand the context of these files: The FBI did not conduct its own investigation, they only assisted law enforcement agencies with theirs (in 1993-4 and again in 2004-5). As the FBI themselves put it: "Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation ... The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases." (https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson) There are no conclusions in these FBI files, they are a 300+ page collection primarily consisting of newspaper clippings or technical analysis of evidence, all aimed to assist law enforcement agencies (as anyone can see at the above link). However the FBI files on Michael Jackson article selectively addresses and responds to the newspaper clippings within the file, or otherwise goes out of its way to refuse claims made accusers. The FBI merely catalogues these claims, and so there is no need to refute them or add another voice. The issue is whether or not the allegations within the newspaper clippings should be addressed and refuted within this article. It has been voiced that there is a danger of readers seeing the mention of allegations and believing them, and so information "critical" of Jackson's accusers needs to be added. (Note: Such allegations are already covered in detail elsewhere, eg. Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc.) I would also draw an analogy to a similar article: FBI files on Elvis Presley. This article also features allegations ("a drug addict and a sexual pervert") and his fans ("Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies") but there hasn't been an attempt to refute these. I believe this article should be impartial to the contents of the files, in the same way the Elvis article is, rather than try to push one particular point of view, and limit commentary to the public reaction of the File's release. Because of the complexity of this issue, I have laid out the problems in detail on the Talk page, specifically to aid with this dispute resolution: Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help add more clarity and opinion on what the focus of this article should be. Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative. Summary of dispute by BD2412Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I doubt that this controversy can be considered ripe for dispute resolution, but I will basically repeat here what I have already said in the discussion. It is an independently reported fact that the FBI has a set of files relating to Michael Jackson, which were themselves a topic of public interest at some point. There is, therefore, a basis for these to be considered to be independently notable, and (as noted) at least one precedent with the comparable FBI files on Elvis Presley. These files, while to some extent overlapping with content covered in other articles, also reflect investigation of a threat against Jackson apparently unrelated to any other allegations. The FBI, of course, does not conduct investigations for their own entertainment, but to determine whether a crime has been committed that can be charged. The resolution of an FBI investigation is a binary determination of whether to file charges or not. It is also important to remember that the FBI does not investigate any matter unless either they are asked to help by a local law enforcement agency, or the matter involves a violation of federal law (which includes a fairly wide variety of crimes involving crossing state lines). The FBI has the power to bring federal charges, independently of any state action, where evidence of a federal crime is found. In this case, however, we have a reliable source, CBC News, which examines FBI investigation of the subject and specifically states that the FBI "made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". Having seen no source suggesting otherwise, this is what should be reflected in the article. Editor theories that the work of the FBI in some way did, in fact, lead to charges, would require a source to that effect contravening the CBC News report. BD2412 T 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IsraellPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First, Factlibrary1, castorbailey and Phil Bridger, all also involved in the discussion, were still not notified. Second, the FBI has indeed investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years. CBC News, a reliable source accepted under Wikipedia standards, did publish an article entitled FBI investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years.[1] This article alone is sufficient verification. Third, ThunderPeel2001/WikiMane11 wrote: "Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative." After analysis, I have found none of that non-neutral narrative in the article. I do agree with BD2412 who wrote on the article's Talk page ("Removal of Unbalanced tag" section) that the files cover what they cover, and conclude what they conclude. Whether Jackson appears "innocent" or "guilty" is totally irrelevant. Fourth, likewise, Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of individuals and groups who believe that Jackson was/is wholly guilty of grooming and child sex abuse (molestation and rape). Likewise, I am not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but I have noticed a certain pattern ever since the release of 'Leaving Neverland' last year. A number of editors would come and start making radical changes to articles, removing big parts, removing anything as they saw fit, adding templates (puffery, unbalance, etc.), nominating articles for deletion, etc., oftentimes with no prior discussion on the Talk page or before any consensus was reached. Other editors and I had to revert their edits, politely ask them to discuss changes on the Talk page, but they'd fight us even harder, repeatedly making the same edits and accusing us of being unruly. As a matter of fact, such disruption caused several of them to be blocked or even topic-banned. In my observation, such editors tend to remove as many things as possible that seems to point to Jackson's innocence, his philanthropy and some of his achievements. They'd also, in some cases, add WP:OR and POV such as this: "Skin bleaching creams have been used by other black celebrities to lighten their skin tone. Skin bleaching products have also been known to be the cause of vitiligo and so onset of the disease could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching. Vitiligo did not cause him to surgically remove his black features." [7] This was so blatant, I alerted other editors and admins, and they all agreed it was very POV pushing and I was right to revert it. [8] This is the cause of some of the ping-pong edits/edit-warring on Michael Jackson articles, and I agree such disruption must come to an end. And what about this? [9] In this edit, the editor added an allegation that had nothing to do with the Chandler case. And what about this? [10] The editor wrote in their edit summary: "He wasn't allegedly dead when he molested these kids, that'd be creepy." One, the text did not say Jackson was allegedly dead. Two, the editor made the bold accusation Jackson "molested these kids" even though Jackson was not ever found guilty of such misconduct in any court of law. Also, a portion of those who believe Jackson guilty, in my observation, do spend a great deal of time and energy (outside of Wikipedia) pushing that narrative. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do so here, but I could cite a string of sources demonstrating so. Note: My fourth point is a direct response to WikiMane11's argument that Jackson fans are likely to push POV on Wikipedia. And lastly, I honestly believe the article to be fine as it is, and I do not support the changes made by WikiMane11. In one of their edits, they removed 5 paragraphs with no prior discussion and with no consensus at all! Who does that? As for the "Unbalanced" tag, I only later noticed it had been discussed on the Talk page, but no consensus was reached, yet they added it back two more times. They also kept removing sourced parts of the article (leading to different parts of the FBI website) just because they felt that information is making a case for Jackson's innocence. [11] I am in favour of enriching, improving the article the way admin BD2412 has been doing, but I do not support such drastic and undue removals and rewrite. Israell (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TruthGuardiansPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I hardly consider this issue a reason to have even made it this far to a dispute resolution. Let us take this 1 talk page discussion at a time: First off there’s a claim that the article is not just about the FBI files. It is. I authored this article from beginning to end. It has been edited and improved here and there by other editors and admins. I can tell you that while it is indeed about the FBI Files, the FBI files are partially about the allegation. The sources used to discuss these files also discussed the various parts of the files in a similar fashion. No one here has agreed that there is a bias because it doesn't exist. If Jackson appears to be innocent after reading this article, that's probably because the FBI did not find any incriminating evidence to suggest that Jackson was guilty of any criminal activity. I just presented the information in the article from approved sources. Then there was a brief discussion as to wether or not this should be a separate article. Yes, it absolutely should. The “Media Reaction” section of the article makes it abundantly clear. There are far less notable topics on Wikipedia with its own article. Finally, there is a talk page discussion about a balance tag that kinda morphed into a discussion about having to explain that the FBI did in fact investigate Mr. Jackson. They investigated death threats into him, they investigated hard drives, they investigated extortion attempts, and they investigated allegations among other things. Hence their name the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Either way, that has nothing to do with this article being unbalanced. Only one editor sees it as such and decided to start a Dispute resolution because no one else agreed. In conclusion, the suggested edits are a single person’s POV. Over 3,000 were removed because of the POV of one editor. The editor has yet to provide any sources countering the sourced content of the article. The burden of proof is not with the content of the article, but the counter argument from a single editor. The content has since been restored and even improved upon by an admin and I think it should be left as is, or added to. Nothing should be taken away. Thanks for your time and my apologies that a dispute has made it this far. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Factlibrary1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I just don’t believe that the POV of one editor is a proper reason for a dispute resolution. This article does a fantastic job at remaining balance and avoiding potential POV issues. It sticks to the sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As other editors have stated, there are zero sources contradicting the content of this article. If you observe the edit history, you’ll see that there have been many editors to come along and make contributions to this article. Admins too. Not one has had similar complaints about any of its content. The article has been viewed thousands of times since its creation, and still no complaints. The article should remain as is, and added to if needed over time. I would very much recommend removing no content. There is quite frankly no need. Factlibrary1 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by castorbaileyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The article does not state that there was an ungoing FBI investigation for 10 years. But they did investigate various matters related to Jackson over about 10 years. There are clear conclusions in the files, regarding nothing illegal being found on the hard drives (that's what nothing on each page means), and not finding any investigation into Jackson allegedly molesting two Mexican boys. Furthermore, the purpose of all those FBI investigations was to determine whether they can find evidence of crimes. If charges did not arise from anything mentioned in those files or the prosecutors who were assisted by the FBI used nothing in those files that itself proves the FBIs conclusion was none of those investigation yielded evidence that Jackson was a molester. This is self evident and the FBI doesn't have to explicitly state that in thos files for it to be true. As the CBC article cites as a source states "Over the next 10 years, they made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges." The article does not explore the allegations in general. Only the parts of the allegations which are the subject of the FBI files. The lack of details regarding the opinion of a person stating "I would judge that he [Elvis] may possibly be a drug addict and a sexual pervert" in the Elvis article is not comparable to lack of details about the Terry George articles investigated by the FBI. Those were specific allegations made by a specific person which were investigated by the FBI and it make sense to cite sources regarding what came out, or rather did not, of it. A reliable source is given which proves George indeed cheefully recalled his 1979 interview with Jackson. and the conversation in the cited documentary is about the very same tabloid clippings which were investigated by the FBI. They are not unconnected. Information about Terry George's behavior and statememts is relevant as to why the FBI investigation into this particular matter did not yield information which the prosecutors could use to corroborate their charges against Jackson. Regarding the tape investigated for child pornography the investigation was closed in 1997 without any charge which itself proves it was not child porn. To believe otherwise you have to believe that the FBI decided to investigate a tape and its origin, concluded that it's child porn but decided to close the case without any charge. The date of that investigation also shows that the FBI did investigate matters related to Jackson but not directly connected to the 1993-1994 and 2003-2005 cases. Summary of dispute by Phil BridgerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
FBI files on Michael Jackson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Statement by ModeratorI am willing to try to mediate this dispute. Please read the standard ground rules. I will repeat what I said above. We are only discussing article content about the article on the FBI files on Michael Jackson. We are not discussing Michael Jackson, or the allegations against Michael Jackson, or the truth or untruth of the allegations. The article should only reflect what reliable sources have said about the FBI files. If three or more editors make statements below saying that they wish to engage in moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion, and can clarify its scope. Be civil and concise. We are not talking about each other, and we are not talking about Michael Jackson, except to the extent that the FBI investigated him or assisted in his investigation. If we do not have agreement for moderated discussion, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) First Statements by EditorsI came to this article only recently, as I was invited rather out of the blue on my talk page to review the conflict as an administrator. As far as I can recall, I have not previously engaged in any discussions relevant to these files or the matters investigated. I have some concerns about a pattern of statements on the talk page emanating from User:ThunderPeel2001. For example:
It is not apparent to me that this article either is or even can be a vehicle for "pushing a narrative", since it is focused on a very specific subject, and the contents of this article do not in any way change the contents of several other articles on the activities to which the alleged "innocence" narrative would apply. There is always a concern when using lengthy primary sources such as government investigative documents that undue emphasis will be given, for example, to lines of inquiry that sound scandalous but which turn up no evidence of wrongdoing. As I have noted on the talk page, where the subject of the article involves a criminal investigation, we do need to state up front whether criminality was found in that investigation, as the fact of an investigation itself creates a cloud of negativity over those investigated. That is why, I would suggest, we have no choice but to reflect what independent and reliable secondary sources deem important within those primary sources. I don't think that any effort is afoot here to push a narrative; other articles that would be the more logical target of such an effort. BD2412 T 04:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Hi Robert, thanks for volunteering to moderate this discussion. And thanks to BD2412 for joining the discussion. I hope the other editors agree to join as well, since they have fought so hard against my attempt to stop the bias I believe is present in this article. Conveniently, I think the comments by BD2412 reflect the exact attitude of bias that I'm trying to flag:
These are legal documents, and this article should reflect their contents. It is not the duty of Wikipedia to shape, twist or present legal documents in a way that better presents their subject. It's factually true that Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies, with assistance of the FBI, for suspected child molestation. Is it Wikipedia's job to attempt to dispel the "cloud of negativity" around this fact? If so, why? If this wasn't a beloved pop-singer, would people feel the need to soften these facts? It's also factually true that Jackson was acquitted in a court of law, and as that's factually true I see now harm in presenting that in the article, if any balance is needed. But I see problems with selectively attempting to discredit elements from the file (while completing ignoring others), sometimes to the point of completely falsely representing the truth, in order to dispel a "cloud of negativity". Facts do not need balancing, they can be presented as they are. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, the POV push of the FBI not investigating Jackson and not reaching conclusions will be expelled using the sources that back this article. The following sources are all sources that allude to the fact that the FBI actually did investigate Michael Jackson and that nothing incriminating was found and are all used in this article: 1. This Forbes article What you should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary says, “The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.” 2. This CNN article FBI files on Michael Jackson published online says, “The files also include notes from the FBI's investigation of a man who sent letters threatening to kill Jackson and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.” It also makes such statements like, “A notation at the end of the case file said it was closed in August 1994 as "No outstanding leads remain for the Los Angeles Office in this matter." 3. This ABC News article FBI Releases Documents in Jackson Probes also alluded to the FBI Investigating Jackson like, “The agency went to London and Manila to investigate other accusations that Jackson had engaged in improper behavior with boys.” AND “The agency also investigated another allegation from a woman and her husband who worked in child services in Toronto, Canada.” AND "…the collection of sexually explicit images in magazine and books" and a VHS videotape that the FBI analyzed as part of a child pornography investigation.” This article also speaks of FBI reaching conclusions like, “The FBI concluded there was no threat.” 4. The title of this NY Daily News Article FBI's Michael Jackson files opened: Feds investigated King of Pop in two child molestation cases says it all. 5. Also, The title of this CBS News article FBI Helped Investigate Michael Jackson says it all. It also says, “The FBI's legal office in London assisted local authorities with a child molestation probe in 1993 and in 1995 U.S. customs officials asked the FBI to analyze a VHS videotape as part of its child pornography investigation.” 6. This BBC News article Michael Jackson: FBI releases classified files on star says, “No intelligence indicating a terrorist threat" existed, the FBI said, although the bureau did provide other technical and investigative assistance into the case.” 7. This E Online article The Michael Jackson FBI Files' Greatest Hits says, “Highlights include a heretofore undisclosed 1995 child-porn investigation, which went nowhere.” It also, like other sources used in the article and sources mention here touches on conclusions as well, “Nothing." What the FBI found over and over again when it did a forensic search of Jackson's computers for the 2003-05 child-molestation case that resulted in Jackson's acquittal.” AND “The tracking was, like, totally super-sucky. No charges were filed.” So to summarize, the complaint is that the FBI did not investigate Jackson or reach conclusions. These articles overwhelmingly prove the exact opposite. There are no articles that suggest that Jackson was not investigated and that the FBI does not reach conclusions. The entire article should remain as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
This Article uses all reliable sources completely void of any POV and strictly sticks to the sources to avoid Wikipedia:No original research. The Article also uses secondary sources to back primary sources as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Everything is cited. I would recommend this article to remain as is. Israell (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by ModeratorSo far, we have two editors participating. I don't think that either of the editors is really talking about article content anyway. One editor is expressing a concern about POV-pushing. The other editor is saying that they don't have a concern about POV-pushing because the article has a specific focus. These are both broad statements, acknowledging that they both recognize that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. But the purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content disputes, and content disputes are about particular sections or paragraphs. Rather than expressing a general concern about POV-pushing, DRN encourages editors to identify the specific sections or paragraphs that they think need to be modified (or left as is). So: Are there any specific concerns about sections or paragraphs? I will also restate some of the rules, that are in the rule page, but may have to be restated. First, be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not clarify. Some of the above is long. Second, comment on content, not contributors. So far, that is being followed. Third, do not engage in back-and-forth. There is a back-and-forth reply above. Do not engage in back-and-forth. I will ask you what to say, and you will answer my questions, not each other. That is moderated discussion. If you want unmoderated discussion, that is what the talk page is for. Fourth, be specific as to what you want changed or left alone. That is a restatement of the above paragraph. Please respond within 48 hours as to what article section or paragraph content concerns you have. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by EditorsThanks Robert. Let's get into some specifics: The section marked "Part four: video analysis" makes claims about the evidence that were not supported by the FBI files themselves, or any other source. It revolves around "Part 04" of the FBI files and a VHS cassette seized by US Customs. According to the article: "The tape was analyzed and nothing incriminating or illegal was found on the poor quality cassette". The above claim is not supported by the FBI files in any way. Nowhere does it say that nothing was incriminating or illegal was found on the VHS. The FBI files themselves simply document an "authenticity examination" and are highly technical in nature. There are no conclusions or discussion about the contents of the video, other than on page two, where the words "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" can be seen. No other citation is offered for this statement at all. The section also states: "The VHS was not in Jackson's possession; or is even known to belong to Jackson". Again, this is not supported by the FBI files. And the only citation for this claim is a Guardian article (which is just reporting on the release of the FBI files and contains no original research). It states: "It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere." In other words, it also does not support the above quote at all, either. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Part four, like the other parts, uses the primary source and 2 secondary sources including the Guardian. Taking the language used from these sources in the editor’s (my) own words is how this section is composed, so as to avoid any copyright violations. Another source in the same section says, "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology" Label on a VHS tape "connected with Jackson," per the FBI's account. In 1995, the agency was called in by U.S. Customs to analyze the tape. Its findings: The tracking was, like, totally super-sucky. No charges were filed.” There are even sources that are not used in the article that draws same conclusions in different words like this one: “ The file also made a reference to a 1995 videotape labeled in part “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology,” but there was no further information about what was on the tape. Ultimately, their investigation didn’t render enough evidence for the bureau to go forward on federal charges, and the file was “administratively closed” in 2005.” In summary, the editor (myself) stuck to the sources used. There are still no sources countering the sources used. My suggestion is to leave the part as is.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Part 4 should stay the way it is written. There are ample amounts of articles echoing the same words in this section. The source cited was a reliable source that says: “Customs allegedly asked the FBI to analyse a "multi-generation copy of poor quality" of a VHS videotape labelled "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favourites, An All Boy Anthology". It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere, and again no charges were laid.” With the tape being found in customs on a day and time that Jackson wasn't even in the same time zone indicates that the tape was not in Jackson's possession as mentioned in the sources. Israell (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Third Statement by ModeratorIt appears that the only matters being discussed are about Section 4. Since Section 4 is relatively short, each editor may propose their preferred version of Section 4 (or say, as one did, to leave it as is). You may also provide a one-sentence statement in support of your version, but discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each wording is really a matter for rounds four and five, so focus on what you want the section to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Third Statements by EditorsLeave the section as is. It sticks to the reliable sources cited. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Leave the section as is. All statements in the section is supported by the FBI files and no reliable source contradict them. castorbailey (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Leave part 4 as is. It’s balanced, void of any copyright violations and uses the reliable sources cited out of over a dozen that could have been used. Israell (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Suggested revision:
This is factually accurate and supported by sources. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorThree editors want to leave Part 4 alone. One editor wants to make apparently minor changes to it which however change the emphasis, in particular by adding the tacit implication that unknown charges may have been filed and dropped somewhere. We can handle this in one of two ways. First, we can close this, stating that there is a local consensus for the current wording. The editor who disagrees may file a Request for Comments, but otherwise discussion is resolved. Second, we can try to compromise. Any effort at compromise is voluntary, so it is really up to the editors who support the existing wording, and can leave it alone, or can offer compromises. Any discussion of the other parts of the article can be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsI am willing to attempt a compromise with the following proposal as it sticks to the source cites a lot more closely, but removes mention that the tape was “not in Jackson’s possession.” Containing only 9 pages, Part 4 of 7 focuses on the analysis of a multi-generational poor quality VHS tape seized by US Customs in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1995. The tape was labelled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” but the files do not mention that Jackson himself owned the tape or had anything to do with it. The investigation whether it contained child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997. No charges were filed. If consensus is reached on this version, I am willing to edit the article to reflect updated version. If not, then keep it as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) I have no objection against this latest version. It is supported by the files and reliable sources. castorbailey (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC) I would not object to the proposed compromise suggested by TruthGuardians. It reads a little more cleanly and is fully supported by primary and secondary sources. Israell (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC) I appreciate the compromise. Further compromise:
WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Fifth Statement by ModeratorTwo compromise proposals have been offered. I am asking each editor to !vote Yes or No on the original wording (version zero), the first compromise, and the second compromise. If either compromise proposal is approved by four editors, it will be accepted. If not, then if the existing wording is approved by three editors, it will be accepted as status quo. Otherwise we will see what to do next. Do not propose any more compromise wordings at this time. Just say yes or no to version zero, version one, and version two. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC) First Compromise ProposalContaining only 9 pages, Part 4 of 7 focuses on the analysis of a multi-generational poor quality VHS tape seized by US Customs in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1995. The tape was labelled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” but the files do not mention that Jackson himself owned the tape or had anything to do with it. The investigation whether it contained child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997. No charges were filed. Yes TruthGuardians (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Yes castorbailey (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Yes Israell (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Second Compromise ProposalContaining only 9 released pages, Part 4 focuses on the analysis of a VHS video cassette tape labeled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” that was seized in West Palm Beach, Florida by US Customs in 1995. The files indicate the presence of child pornography, but it's unclear what connection (if any) there was to Jackson himself. The analysis was complete and the file closed by January 24, 1997, and no charges are known to have been filed. No TruthGuardians (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC) No castorbailey (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC) No Israell (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Fifth Statements by EditorsInstead of going with version zero, I decided to go with the first compromise proposal as the language in it does appear to be more closely sourced than version zero, and unlike the second compromise proposal, there are actually secondary sources that completely back this entire section as it is written. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC) There is no need to take out multi-generational poor quality when the files support that. The files do not indicate the presence of child pornography they only indicate that they investigated whether the tape contains child pornography, obviously based on the tape's label. The files do not include anything that connects the tape to Jackson, besides his name being on the label. If charges are not known to have been filed then charged were not filed. No need to leave the reader with the impression that charges were filed but somehow there is no way to know that for sure. No source support that. castorbailey (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Version zero doesn’t violate any Wikipedia rules, and it was well written. However, First Compromise Proposal does read a little more cleanly. For that reason, I have chosen the first compromise proposal. The second compromised proposal doesn’t even have sources to back its content. It says: “the files indicate the presence of child pornography.” That is simply not true. It’s not indicated in part 4 of the FBI files, nor are there any secondary sources to back up those claims. The only reason why the words “child pornography” is written is because that was the nature of the investigation. The FBI was investigating the possibility of child pornography. Instead, what they got was a tape where the quality was so bad that no images could be determined. Israell (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Sixth Statement by ModeratorThere is a rough consensus that we will adopt the first compromise proposal. I will be updating the article to that effect. Unless there are any other issues, this dispute will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Sixth Statements by EditorsThanks for your time, Robert. Looking forward to the update. There are no other issues from my end. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I see no other issues. castorbailey (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for moderating this dispute, being fair and impartial. There are no other issues for me neither. Israell (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) References
|
Bulgars
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There has not been a discussion on the article talk page. This appears to be a complaint by one editor about the conduct of another editor. Either discuss it on the article talk page first, or report the conduct at WP:ANI if there really is a conduct issue (but read the boomerang essay first). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 22 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 A user by the name of Beshogur edited the Wikipedia for the ancient nomadic peoples the Bulgars
There is a long debate on their origins if they were Turkic, Iranic, or of other origins and as these debates rage the account know as Beshogur edited the page with malicious nationalist intentions
He intentionally edited this page to put his thumb in the eye of Bulgarian history and to appropriate it as Turkish Truth is the average ethnic Turkish person is not even 10-20% of Turkic heritage By adding “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” it undermines Bulgarian history and heritage in a big way Just look at this persons account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beshogur
This is an insurance to Bulgarian history and heritage I do not blame Wikipedia however this one bad egg deserves his moderator status revoked immediately!!! He is abusing for nationalistic purposes !!!! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgars How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? by removing "not to be mistaken with Bulgarian Turks" from the bulgar wiki page and remove "not to be mistaken with bulgars" from the Bulgarian Turks page :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Turks Summary of dispute by Ss84325 BeshogurPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bulgars discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
List of largest empires
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not properly filed, probably not able to be properly filed, and not the best forum for the question. It is necessary to list all of the editors to file a case here. With more than 20 editors, a Request for Comments is a better idea, and does not require notifying the other editors, just putting the RFC in its place. If the filing unregistered editor wants assistance in formulating the RFC, they can ask on my talk page. Otherwise, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 23 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 In the List of largest empires page, there is clearly a big mistake about the size of the Portuguese empire and Brazil empire. The Brazilian empire is listed has been bigger than the Portuguese empire at their peaks. This is of course not true, the entire of Brazil once belonged to Portugal. The justification in there is "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Despite the source being reliable, this is false, as can be seen in the talk page, and in the archives, plenty of users provided enough evidence to dismiss this figure. A consensus is not reached because the user TompaDompa doesn't want to reach one and he acts like the page is owned by him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_6 See on the various "Portuguese empires" or similar topics.
I think the volunteers should take a good look at all the evidence and sources already provided by various users in order to decide if the size of the Portuguese empire of 5.5 million km2 should be removed and finally reach a consensus. Thank you. Summary of dispute by various (more than 20)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of largest empires discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to lack of adequate prior discussion. A volunteer stated that the filing editor had not discussed the issue on the article talk page. 24 hours later, the filing editor has still not discussed the article content on the talk page. They are advised to discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 23 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 I find the article politically biased. It presents only left-wing point of view. It does not cover author's response to the situation with "Cham niezbuntowany" book. The information in the lead (about the "myth" word usage) I find to be extreme case of cherrypicking and offensiveness. Trasz (talk · contribs) replied to my attempts to make the article more neutral with "vandalism" accusations. Whether we assume that mr Ziemkiewicz used the word "myth" correctly or not, it does not change the fact, that in multiple interviews (for example here [12] or even in more detail here [13]) he explains exactly how he defines the word "myth". Using this to claim that he denies Holocaust (and this is the message that is currently placed in the lead of an article) is a very strong manipulation at best. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Balance critical information towards mr Ziemkiewicz with his response to the matter and remove offensive information from the lead. Summary of dispute by TraszPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Article's talk page pretty much sums it all - several native polish speakers, including me, pointed out that your understanding of the polish word "mit" is plain wrong. Summary of dispute by PsiĥedelistoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As far as I can tell, there was no current dispute until AvertSec engaged in some recent page blanking.[14] Piotrus watered down the original wording and opined on 1 July on talk page that it was justified as Summary of dispute by PiotrusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
RAZ is a controversial figure in Poland. We need to strike the balance while dealing with partisan sources on both sides. I think WP:BLP is very crucial to observe, but the article (and its lead) should also not avoid mentioning that the subject is controversial. Anyway, while more eyes are nice, I'll point out that AFAIK the 'last word' on this comes from my post few weeks ago at Talk:Rafał_A._Ziemkiewicz#"Mit" and nobody has replied to it yet, so... Reviewing the recent's article history, I see that User:AvertSec created their account on July 21, removed some content from the article twice (and was reverted), then jumped straight here without stopping by the discussion page. Something's fishy... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Zofia BranickaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Order of Nine Angles
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Although the other editor responded initially, they did not follow up by responding to the moderator's request for a statement after four days. This appears to be a case where the other editor chooses not to engage in discussion. Read this essay and follow its advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 25 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 I could use a fresh pair of eyes having an outsider perspective on the Nazi-Satanist Order of Nine Angles article. Anonymous and other users keep deleting chunks of article they deem against "NPOV" despite of being supported by numerous Reliable Source articles by BBC and others. I'm not seeing the issue despite of discussion, and I want to assume good faith even though other editors have reverted previous deletions as attempts of sanitation. The last edit again removed half of the infobox for "NPOV" How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like to see someone not engaged in editing the article to give their opinion if there truly is an issue or just clear cut case of WP:SEALION and attempts at sanitation. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Pavane7Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Order of Nine Angles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The dispute is about NPOV and using and giving prominence to unproven allegations and not providing the O9A denial of such allegations.--Pavane7 (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
First Statement by ModeratorIt appears that the editors are willing to have moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, don't guess. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not clarify the situation. Reply only to me, not to each other. Do not discuss things back-and-forth. It appears that either the only issue or one of the issues has to do with allegations of rape and human sacrifice, which are serious allegations and which require that Wikipedia address them carefully with attention to due level of coverage and to what reliable sources have written. I will ask each editor to state their initial position concerning coverage of the allegations, in one paragraph. Do not offer a compromise at this point, because that can come later. First we need to know what we are compromising between. Also, if there are any other issues, please state what the other issue is, in one sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
First Statement by EditorsO9A members have been tied to murder plots, but this is already covered on the page in length. I don't think the murder/sacrifice aspect needs more covering. I only want that the page covers the sexual assaults aspect, which has been reported by numerous RS sources. Pavane7 was originally unwilling to cover the subject, but did eventually add a section about the subject, even if just to say the claims were false. It's a bit better as it currently is, mentioning the crimes, the pro-rape literature by the group and briefly mentioning how police are concerned by the desire of some of the members to target children. Edit: User:HandThatFeeds makes a good point: "We do not have to provide a rebuttal from the subject to maintain NPOV. As it stands, your new section is overly accepting of O9A's statements while deriding the accusations as those of a "political advocacy group." This is really starting to smell of whitewashing." I'm inclined to agree. RKT7789 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by ModeratorOne of the editors has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement. If the other editor does not make a statement, this case will be closed within 24 hours. Since discussion is voluntary, discussion can resume on the article talk page. If there isn't any discussion then, read this essay, and consider using a Request for Comments to establish what reliable sources have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors
|
Roman numerals
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The discussion is being repetitive. The filing editor can either post a Request for Comments or accept that there is a rough consensus against them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 25 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 I'd like to add a new section to the article, describing the convention by which Roman Numerals are constructed in a coherent, logical manner. My content is reliably sourced, and through various revisions has become quality work. However, even after refinement, other editors still refuse to assent to the section going up. Their complaints seem to boil down to one of the following: 1. that the ruleset doesn't describe the system in a meaningful, consistent way (which it does) 2. that it's not based directly on the relevant RS (which it is) 3. that it's somehow redundant and doesn't cover a second approach lacking in the article (also incorrect) 4. that readers will be flummoxed and confused by my content (in spite of my streamlining and clarifying) The first 3 points are invalid. the only one that's debatable is the fourth, and even that seems to underestimate the intelligence of the average reader. there's nothing wrong with having a basic description and more thorough treatment side-by-side, I don't think this is confusing at all, and I can always mention in the lede how Roman Numerals can be described by two different approaches. The article as it stands gives a basic overview, but it doesn't describe in detail how the convention works. My section fills in this gap, and it's derived from the RS. In fact, some of my RS also have a 'twin approach' of a basic description next to logical rules, so there's no reason the article shouldn't do the same. my section can be seen here: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules As an aside, I'd be willing to compromise if necessary, as long as the core content is retained. For example, I could leave out the extended section on fractions/vinculums if needed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Roman_numerals#Ruleset_for_Roman_Numerals,_revisited Talk:Roman_numerals#Let's_actually_look_at_the_famous_"ruleset" Talk:Roman_numerals#Latest_rendition_of_ruleset How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My section has been blockaded by other editors, notably Soundofmusicals, who simply disagree with my approach, with not much of a valid reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Thus, I'd like more judgment and input on this matter, so that I can add my content to the article without being stonewalled. Thanks in advance. Summary of dispute by Soundofmusicals"Dispute" has continued (off and on) for a period of years. It is between one user and several other users (almost everyone who has recently edited Roman numerals). The "additional" matter that has been "blockaded" is not additional - but repeats the general description of "how Roman numerals work". Only one user (the proposer) considers that this repetition is superior to the existing text. Many cogent arguments against the proposed repetition have been presented by several users but no "new" arguments have been offered in return - (arguments in favour are still the same ones that were brought up originally - attempts to progress towards a compromise have been steadfastedly stonewalled by the proposer. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SpitzakThe proposal has more "rules" than there are different digits used in Roman numerals. It is not any kind of useful explanation, in fact figuring out what patterns are allowed by his rules and why is a difficult logic problem. Current explanation of the numbers is also bloated but much much better. Summary of dispute by Martin_of_Sheffieldwhich was followed by a table. Subsequently all other participants except Xcalibur/Bigdan201 took this as the basis for development. A further quote:
The discussion ceased on 4 June and the article has been stable since then. I'm not sure why Xcalibur/Bigdan201 has resurrected this nearly two months later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Roman numerals discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gilad Atzmon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This is a dispute about whether to put an article in a category. As such, this is not a useful forum to deal with such a dispute, because the objective of moderated discussion is compromise. There is no compromise on a category. It is either yes or no. Two alternatives would be a Third Opinion or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 26 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 Atzmon, a WP:BLP, has been included in a category, Category:Anti-Judaism for several years. No justification (edit summary) was advanced for his addition to the category. The arguments against his inclusion are as follows. The category definition is "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior.” Atzmon, brought up as a secular Jew, has no known religious beliefs. His criticisms do not come from the standpoint of someone following an alternative religion, as the category demands. He has acquired a reputation for criticising Jewish nationalism and Jewish political modes of thinking including, but not only, Zionism, but has repeatedly said that he is not criticising Judaism, the religion. Another editor has quoted Hirsh as describing Atzmon of using anti-Jewish rhetoric. Whether or not that is the case, his brief examples are secular, not religious. The editor has also quoted Sunshine who describes Atzmon as denouncing Judaism, alleging Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish ideology, though Sunshine’s reliance on a brief extract from an anonymous open letter makes interpretation difficult. However, it is consistent with Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish nationalism and socio-economic-political behaviour and attitudes and does not entail an attack on the religion per se and certainly not from a religious standpoint. The burden of proof is on those seeking the article's inclusion and I think it fails the test. ‘Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.’ WP:CATVER I think that this categorisation is controversial and that the material in the article does not support it and advocate the article's removal from it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Proposed_removal_of_article_from_the_Anti-Judaism_category How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing a clear independent interpretation of whether or not Atzmon meets the criteria for inclusion in Category:Anti-Judaism, bearing in mind the requirements for verifiability and avoidance of controversy WP:CATVER, with a rationale, and a route by which the article may be removed from the category if it does not meet the criteria. Summary of dispute by HippeusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gilad Atzmon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
War of 1812
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs)
- Elinruby (talk · contribs)
- Davide King (talk · contribs)
- Ykraps (talk · contribs)
- The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is an ongoing discussion about the results of the war of 1812, and how those results are shown in the results field, in the infobox. The article notes there is a dispute among historians as to who won the war of 1812, with some historians(Majority) saying it was a stalemate/draw, but others(a significant minority) say that Britain/Canada won. The viewpoint on who won differs between the two countries, with Canadians generally believing they won and the United States popularly say it was a stalemate/draw. I have proposed that for NPOV reasons, the result section in the infobox should reflect both views. The point was previously agreed to and consensus was that both viewpoints should be reflected in the infobox, as that would reflect what the article says - that discussion is here: [[16]]. This was changed later by a sole editor without consensus or discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Both myself and Davide King have debated this and while we agree on somethings, we cannot agree on others, and have both agreed that a third party should look at the issue.
Summary of dispute by Elinruby
I am "involved" to the extent that I have been doing a third-party edit on the article, which has suffered from copyvios from old texts with archaic language and complete dismissal of any but cherry-picked texts. In my opinion the entire infobox should probably be deleted rather than have editors spend another decade shoe-horning in complex information. But. If the article must have an infobox, and apparently it must, all of the issues with balance and weight need to be resolved. Adding the defeat of Tecumseh helps. Adding that Washington and York were put to the torch also helps. I would like to see a reference for status quo ante bellum and a clarification that this applied specifically to the border between the United States and Upper and Lower Canada, since many tribes were displaced in the aftermath of this war. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Davide King
I am not going to waste my time repeating obvious things. Just read this summary (fixed typo here).--Davide King (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck, Red Rock Canyon, Rjensen, Shakescene, Tirronan and perhaps others should have been added too as they were all involved in some way. Why are they not included or mentioned at all?--Davide King (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) I looked at who was posting on the specific thread, it was mainly you and I, and it was you and I who both agreed third party comment would be good (2) I have posted a note on the talk page for anyone interested to be involved, with a link to this notice so they can certainly join in if they wan (3) Some of them have expressed the view they *Do not* want to discuss it, though I agree, I think The Four Deuces may so I will put something on his talk page and I have added him above - Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the infobox does not say it was a draw; it says it was military stalemate which is not disputed even by those who say one side won. What is disputed (by a minority) is that it was a draw; it is not disputed that de facto it was a military stalemate. Military stalemate is also not mutually exclusive that one side, despite the de facto military stalemate per the Treat of Ghent, may have won according to some historians or popular views. What is mutually exclusive is draw and one side won, but we do not say either. We just say it was a military stalemate per the Treaty of Ghent. So I find this discussion unnecessary as per Shakescene we already had a long discussion that did not got us anywhere and that [took] up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times [...]. Besides it's really a variant of a position [Deathlibrarian has] been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008.
At least as far as the outcome is concerned, the infobox is perfectly fine.--Davide King (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ykraps
Like it or not, 'stalemate' is not a neutral term, it is a point of view, and not one that all historians subscribe to. Historians may not agree on the result of the war but all of them agree that it is disputed. Some editors have made this an argument about who won or fringe theories which, to me, shows a lack of understanding as to what the proposal is. If the infobox redirects to the section where the result is discussed, each point of view can be represented and given appropriate weight. This is in line with the infobox parameter guidelines here.[[19]] As things stand, if you are the sort of reader that looks solely at the infobox, you will be left with the impression that stalemate is the universally accepted view, and that is quite wrong.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
The dispute is about whether the info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw or something else. One side says that we should report it as a draw, because that is how it is reported in textbooks and other tertiary sources. the other side says that because a small number of historians and popular opinion in the Province of Ontario have challenged the generally accepted view, claiming it was either a British, American or Canadian victory, we should report that the outcome is disputed. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Red Rock Canyon
The issue is over the infobox, specifically the "Result" section. Previously, the text there had enjoyed consensus for at least 3 years. Then last month some editors proposed a change. There was a short discussion and the change was implemented. Then some other editors objected and changed it back, and opened an RFC (now at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23#Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812). The RFC was poorly worded, leading to confusion among respondents (different editors making identical comments about what they believed the text should be framed their answers as both "yes" and "no"), but it was well-attended, with 12 editors commenting. Even while the RFC was ongoing, multiple editors opened many separate threads on the talk page about the same topic. The talk page quickly became obscenely long. Shakescene archived most of the talk page, including the still-active RFC [20]. The massive walls of text and proliferation of this debate into a half dozen different discussions is bewildering and exhausting. There are too many editors involved for this to be resolved on DRN. I believe the ideal solution is to shut down all the parallel discussions, including this one, and compose a clearly-worded RFC that gives editors two options (the long-standing consensus version and Deathlibrarian's proposed change). Then widely advertise it, including to participants in the previous RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ironic Luck
There was no reason to change that particular set of words from the infobox as the War of 1812 is factually established as a military stalemate which resulted in status quo ante bellum. This led to differing views (in Memory and historiography) of “who really won” the war. A significant portion of the sources stated that the war ended in as a draw or that both sides won. Some claim British/Canadian or American victory.
The reasoning that was proposed by DeathLibrarian reveals a double-standard in the Canadian/British perspective. The same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.
I questioned how the British (and especially Canada) could claim victory when the Democratic-Republicans side of the United States celebrated their victory as they (strictly them) hadn’t lost anything in the war. There was even a Federal holiday to celebrate their victory (The Eighth) and lasted until the American Civil War broke out. The Americans in the modern era (generally) don’t care about the war. Canadian perspective is skewed with the Harper administration placing a large budget into commercial ads promoting nationalism with the “Canadian victory” narrative - when Canada wasn’t even a nation until 1867. Why "British/Canadian Victory-Stalemate" when the Americans felt they won at the time?
I conclude (as of now) that the number of historians that DeathLibrarian brings up as a Canadian/British Victory is an overblown proportion. Some of the sources he brought up stated that both sides claimed victory – perhaps a military stalemate linking to the memory and historiography section is a good idea? Ironic Luck (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. That statement means that the inconclusive war between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a failed American invasion of Canada, which was British (being the part of British North America that had not become independent in the 1775-1783 war), advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
War of 1812 discussion
Panko Brashnarov
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn as resolved by filing party. Kudos to the disputants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 28 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 began when I was doing my regular gnome tasks on Wikipedia and I added'Bulgarian' in front of the word 'revolutionary' based on other information on the page such as that he went to a Bulgarian school and served in the Bulgarian army in WW1 which led to this edit being undone and being told to discuss my change. I complied with this request fully and began to discuss this edit with the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Local_hero who was the person that undone my edit. The back story to this is that Local_hero is Macedonian which is a new nationality that has developed in the past 100 years and they have disputes with other ethnicities about the ethnicity of famous figures. I have tried to fully discuss the reasoning behind my edit with Local Hero however he has essentially tried to shut down the discussion by not beign part of it since it is not in his interest to do so as there is no evidence to disprove the factual accuracy of my edit at least in my opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panko_Brashnarov How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like someone to take a look at the evidence in the article and any extra evidence in the discussion and decide whether adding Bulgarian in front of revolutionary is factually accurate or not. I don't mind if the decision is a no, I just want someone to willingly engage in the discussion so we can come to a conclusion with real reasoning. Summary of dispute by Local_HeroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
What a thoughtful summation of an entire ethnic group in your Dispute overview and your unbiased belief as to how this applies to my own editing. Shall I opine on my perception of your editing bias, seeing as your edits rarely go beyond throwing "Bulgarian" in historical bios or "North" in front of any mention of Macedonia (where it refers to the modern country)? Please don't disparage my editing as going around disputing the ethnicities of historical figures because I rarely do. On topic, I think the situation is pretty clear. The editor attempting to make the change finds the ethnic identity of the individual to be clear-cut. Upon reading the article, I disagree and find the present state to be sufficient (i.e. second sentence of the article). Brashnarov was in the Yugoslav Communist Party and fought against the Axis in WWII. He was also the first speaker of the Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, celebrated by Macedonians to this day because it declared Macedonia the nation-state of ethnic Macedonians in Yugoslavia and declared the Macedonian language the official language of the state. In addition, nationality is typically put in the lead sentence of biographical articles, not ethnicity. Going by that, Ottoman and Yugoslav would be better suited. --Local hero talk 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Panko Brashnarov discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Dispute has been resolved, you can close this ticket thanks a bunch. --James Richards (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. Listed for more than a week with no volunteer willing to take the case. Consider an RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User Mr.User200 adds the name of Polad Hashimov into the infobox as a commander/leader, however there is no any source claiming that he was a leader or commander during the clashes. Azerbaijani sources indicate that he died during the clashes, but do not indicate that he was a leader during clashes, Russian source (provided in article) says that he was from the 3rd Army Corps, but does not says that 3rd Army Corps participated in clashes and Hashimov was a leader at the time of clashes. And even if 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes it does not mean that its Chief was a leader during the clashes (e.g. there is possibility that he was killed before he gave an order to his army to do certain actions during the clashes). The only source claiming that 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes are Armenian that are not neutral and reliable and even these sources don't claim that Hashimov was a leader during the clashes. In my opinion here we have deal with typical POV-pushing of the product of original research. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes#Polad Hashimov How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Yes. 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Names and titles of God in the New Testament
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. Listed for more than a week with no volunteer willing to take the case. Consider an RFC. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:34, 2 August 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 A table with Bible verses was erased, and I have tried to show that it is good to include it. I cannot agree with the other editor. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Names_and_titles_of_God_in_the_New_Testament#NT_quotations How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps our point of view is not complete, so a third opinion is appreciated. Summary of dispute by BealtainemíPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"A table with Bible verses was erased", says JLACO, without saying in what way, if any, he thinks the table benefitted the article Names and titles of God in the New Testament to which he added it. Nobody questions the fact that the Hebrew tetragrammaton יהוה, the name Yahweh, appears nowhere in the (Greek-language) New Testament, and that, in its quotations of Old Testament passages that contain that name, the New Testament speaks of God as Κύριος (LORD) or θεός (GOD). JLACO has compiled a very long table comprising certain Old Testament phrases that in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (in its present form later than the New Testament) contain the word יהוה, and links them with New Testament phrases that some see as echoing (even if not translating) the Old Testament phrases. The table does not claim to contain all such echoes and some of the supposed echoes have been challenged. JLACO has not responded to requests to explain what, in the context of the Wikipedia article, he thinks his disproportionately long table adds to the unquestioned straightforward statement that the New Testament uses, in its echoes of the Old Testament, Κύριος or Θεός where the Masoretic text uses יהוה. Flogging a dead horse? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by WarshyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Names and titles of God in the New Testament discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|