Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 195
 | 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 190 | ← | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
Talk:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The editors say that they are satisfied. If they are satisfied, the substitute moderator is also satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 26 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 This section is largely unsourced and does not accurately reflect what sources say fully. It gives undue weight by mentioning part of what sources say and omitting the rest. I want to add sources, and I want those sources represented with a more complete content. However, this entire discussion may be off-topic for this page. I get consistent opposition to anything I propose, without referencing sources, without offers of compromise or responses to my offer of compromise, and no efforts at collaboration. I am very frustrated and didn't know what else to do but ask for help. Help! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? This is my first effort after the effort on the Talk page: [1] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am hoping for some direction to the others to make the effort to collaborate--or an opinion on whether this is off topic--or an opinion on what should be included--or anything that might break up the log jam. I'm getting nothing right now so anything you offer will be an improvement. Summary of dispute by Objective3000The article is about the persecution of Christians and the section in question, under the Nazis. Millions of people were persecuted by the Nazis for their religion and their religion alone. Moving the focus to anti-Nazi religious leaders, and even specific individual(s), dilutes the article focus as these people would likely have been persecuted irrespective of their religion. Anti-Nazis were killed as a regular practice. Frankly, I think the section is too long now. For example, it includes: Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenAs I see it the issue is that the sources do not support the text, that require a degree of wp:or to make them fit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Talk:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section discussionGood day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to volunteer for this case. To begin with- Each person involved needs to be notified on their talk page by the filing editor. Once that happens, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
First Moderator's StatementOkay the first thing I would like is for each person involved to confirm they are willing to participate, and the second thing is - in 200 words or less, summarize your position and what you would like to see happen at the outcome of this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777's statementI would like to see inline citations for what's already there. I would like to see both the German Christians who supported Nazism and the Confessing church who opposed it mentioned. I would like to see a source for Slatersteven's definition of religious persecution, which differs from that used in the rest of the article, and I think is OR. Or remove all of this as off topic. Either way, I would like to see Dietrich Bonhoeffer included in this section. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity including any alternate views.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Objective3000's statementSlatersteven's StatementYes I am willing to participate, and really have nothing to add, the sources (as far as I can tell) do not say what the filer is using them to support, they do not explicitly say it. Basically it fails verification.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Moderator's Second StatementOkay so as I understand it- these are the issues at hand 1- Adding inline citations for existing information 2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism 3- The definition of religious persecution 4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer 5- What the sources say/support Lets begin with the definition of religious persecution since that will somewhat dictate how the other issues are handled. Would each of you please tell me- with a citation/RS what definition you are using to decide who was a victim of religious persecution and who was not? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Editors' StatementsSlatersteven's Statement[[3]] "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs", pretty much sums it up for me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Also this [[4]], yes it talks about violence but again "religious persecution" is persecution because of someones religion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Objective3000's statementI'm fine with that at Religious_persecution#Definition: "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens."[1] Or, Slatersteven's for that matter. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) References
Jenhawk777's statementAh, you have immediately gone to the heart of the matter. That is the primary cause of the disagreement here, because there is no such thing as an accepted or standardized definition of religious persecution in any reliable source. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the immigration regulations, omit any explanation of the meaning of religious persecution.[1]: 284 The federal courts have recognized it as “ill-defined."[1] : 284 Legal scholars have not attempted a definition because, "by and large, scholars do not believe that a unified definition is possible."[1] : 284 Therefore, it has seemed to me that the most reasonable thing to do is to use what's consistent with the 'working definition' assumed in the rest of this particular and specific article. This definition is "those who were persecuted, who would not have been, had they not been Christian." That's it with no other requirements. As to the subject of this article being the Slatersteven says he wants to know This "description" is this: if someone is practicing their faith — preaching, or converting, or wearing a hijab, or proselytizing, or leading a home church, or opposing a tyrant, or whatever else their religion leads them to do that gets them noticed by the powers that be — and if they are squashed or harassed or harmed or killed for those activities, then they are victims of religious persecution according to contemporary understanding. According to legal scholar Scott Rempel, religious persecution is determined primarily by what harm is done to the victim under circumstances where religion is a recognizable causal factor. That includes those who were persecuted for actions they took because of their faith--like resisting participation in Roman sacrifice--or resisting Hitler. That's the standard assumed in this article. In fact, that's the threshold used by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, and other human rights organizations, and even the US state department's OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Consistency in the meta-message requires using the same standard in this section concerning the Nazis as well. That allows for including the Confessing church even if there is no source that says what Slatersteven wants. (I have no problem including the German Christians, that just needs citing. The disagreement is over adding their opponents, the Confessing church. I think both sides should be mentioned--or neither should--as they existed in equal numbers.) Hitler did not kill millions Hitler's well documented hatred of Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be defined as racial, since the Protestants were Germans. It was specifically a religious hatred, which all the sources also say, and certainly hatred of opposition, absolutely. This, and the definition/description of religious persecution used in this article allows for including Bonhoeffer as an example of the topic of this page. All the RS do say his religion was the cause of his opposition to Hitler, and that opposition got him killed. That isn't OR, it's in every source that speaks of him. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity. I don't think it's appropriate for us to redefine the topic according to our own opinions in order to say what we want to say in this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Moderators third StatementJenhawk777 You say that there is no such thing as an accepted definition- yet both other editors provided WP:RS that say otherwise. And while your description is well thought out and reasonable- it is original research and synthesis based on your own opinion. Now, for the record- it happens to be an opinion I share, but its not supported by a RS that you have presented or I could find in a search. As such, WP must accept the sourced definiton. Now- I would like to give you another chance to find a source that specifically supports your definition and present it here. But baring that- I fail to see how we can reject a consensus around "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs" or "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens." (which are close enough to the same thing). As to the inclusion of the rest- thats something to be debated after we have a definition- so that will come soon, but not yet. Now, again, I want to be clear- I'm not here to make a decision- I'm just mediating- but we do have a consensus here. I realize its not what you would like Jenhawk777- so I ask- do you have a source that states your definition explicitly? If not.... the consensus will have to rule over WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Editor's responsesJenhawk's responseSince the sources say there is no standardized international legal definition, simply picking one out of the many definitions available seems a bit arbitrary, which I admit to doing myself. But that's the problem isn't it? Picking one, without including a discussion of them all is arbitrary. Slatersteven's first reference is a blog which defines persecution as systematic. I actually accept this as far as it goes, but in what way does 'systematic' limit this definition? In Rempel's article[1]: 343 he says "persecution should be defined as the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm," and he spends a lot of time defining harm. On page 288 he says that, based on a survey of "thousands of court cases", there are three frameworks for measuring whether harm is persecution: first, the minimal harm model which depends on the persecutor's motive and the State's willingness and ability to protect the victim. The second framework is called the cumulative harm model, and it aggregates experiences over time. The third model uses the concept of systematic harm. This means the blog's definition is basically one third of a definition from the real world and that it leaves out the other two models that are consistently accepted as persecution in courts of law. On what basis do we accept that blog's definition and not the others from case law? Slatersteven's next reference is a book on politics, however, the book references Grim and Finke's definition of "violent religious persecution" on page 26 as: "physical abuse or displacement of people because of religion." I accept this definition for the most part as well, though it is limited to defining only the violent type of persecution, and if you check footnote 77 on page 126 of a book on using the human rights paradigm to define persecution,[2] it says "The harm or suffering need not be physical..." So, again, on what basis do we accept the one and not the other? They are both sourced. Here is a training manual for the immigration services that says, where persons experience the denial of the basic human right to religious freedom listed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this is religious persecution.[3]: 26 That's also the way the US Department of State's Office of Religious Freedom uses the term persecution. On page 28 of the RAIO manual, you will find that the "International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) states that "severe and violent forms of religious persecution, include 'detention, torture, beatings, forced marriage, rape, imprisonment, enslavement, mass resettlement, and death' merely for the peaceful belief in, change of, or practice of their faith.” I summarized that as those who suffer, who would not have suffered, if not for their faith, but that seems like an explicit statement of the same idea to me. I wanted to add that the alternate definition suffers from the same issues. On page 344, Rempell concludes "the definition of persecution should not include unhelpful or incorrect qualifiers such as..., the requirement that a persecutor inflict a harm for punitive reasons." Religious persecution does not require that one be part of a religious minority. Christians are often persecuted in predominantly Christian countries just as Muslims are most persecuted in Muslim countries. There are no numerical requirements. It is not a requirement that the State be the primary actor.[3]: 22–30 "When determining whether particular harm or abuses constitute persecution, you must consider their impact on the individual applicant."[3] page 28 The truth is, none of these definitions are substantively different except that I acknowledge the wider and broader usage found in the RAIO. The list and description of the many aspects of religious persecution continues for the next several pages of the RAIO manual, but essentially, it says: religious persecution is suffering harm from a loss of religious freedom, and/or from "arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for various religious activities" (page 28), which is the aspect of the definition, explicitly, which says what I said in my summary form. It seems to me that the broader definition is required by a recognition of what all of these sources say, and that is to some degree, synthesis. But choosing one aspect out of the many is arbitrary and OR. So what can be done? Thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond. References
slatersteven's ResponseAs we are not an international (or even national) court of law we do not only use the "legal definition" or words or terms but also their scholastic or common usage. Thus international legal definition is a bit of a red herring. Nor does any of the IRFA training manual (As far as I can see) contradict what I have said, it tells you what you should do, it does not define religious persecution. But it does say "For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis." (my Empahsis) That seems to be fairly close to my definition.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Objective3000's ResponseAgree that we should not use legal definitions. The important part of any definition is that any negative effect must be specifically based on religious (or non-religious) characteristics of the persecuted. In this article, we need only focus on whether persecutor(s), in this case Nazis, did so because of religion. That aside, I would suggest that Jenhawk’s arguments would be more effective if they were more concise. O3000 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Mediator's 4th statementOkay progress at last! We can all agree that the legal definition is not the most appropriate. Thats something!! So what we seem to have in common is- Intolerance, discrimination and/or harm based on religions or non-religious characteristics of the persecuted. Does that definition suit everyone? And Jenhawk777, I do appreciate your carefully crafted response, but I do think O3000 has a point and your purpose would be better served with a more informal, concise tone. This isn't intended to be an series of academic essays, rather a discussion between colleagues and peers. Rather than compose your response as a research paper- try to condense your points into two or three sentences, maybe a paragraph and add inline citations as necessary. So- Does the definition above suit everyone? It still leaves some room for interpretation, but at least it is a good jumping off place and- it would give everyone one set place to begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Editor's responsesObjective3000's ResponseClarification: In this particular case, persecution of Christians, non-religious does not apply. Other than that, I'm fine with the description. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk777's responseI agree with Nightenbelle's definition and with Slatersteven's statement and definition. I disagree with Objective3000's because it adds the requirement of proving motive, which generally can't be done, which is where all of this started. Sorry that I am wordy. It's just who I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Mediators 5th statementPlease refrain from back and forth editing. So motivation is still an area of contention. Rather than hypotheticals- can we please find resources that discuss motivation as a requirement? On both sides? Hypotheticals require us to put our opinion into an article- which we are not to do as editors. We have to only report what RS say. Editor's responsesObjective3000's ResponseWell, either the article includes only those that were persecuted because they were Christian, or everyone that was persecuted for any reason who happened to be Christian. The former assumes a motive related to their religion. The latter is, frankly, ridiculous as it would include people that were persecuted because they were black, homosexual, Soviets, political prisoners, Roma, and disabled who happened to be Christian. They were not persecuted because they were Christian. We have other articles about various groups the Nazis persecuted. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk's response@Nightenbelle: I am so sorry, I did not know that was wrong. Please accept my genuine apology.
slatersteven's ResponsePolicy is clear (per wp:v) a source must explicitly say something, if it is not blindingly obvious it fails verifiability. Now we all agree that "religious persecution" is "persecution based upon religion", the only bone of contention is the idea that whether or not just being a christian who is persecuted counts as persecuting someone because of their religion. That would fall under wp:or, as the editor is making a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC) Mediator's 6th StatementI'm sorry, but Jenhawk777 The sources you provide fail to explicitly state anything other than determining motivation is problematic. They do not justify your position that persecution as a result of actions based in religious beliefs equals religious persecution. They must explicitly say that to count I'm afraid. Otherwise, Slatersteven is correct that is WP:Synthesis and . That combined with the agreement of the other two editors not to include that aspect of the definition equals a consensus at this point. I'm sorry. So-
So Now that was have a definition- what about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? What do the sources say about the reasons why he was persecuted. Do any of them say that he was persecuted/killed because he was a Christian... Or do any sources specitfically say the actions that caused his perseuction were because of his Christian faith- this can't be assumed- it has to be specifically stated. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Editor's statements=slatersteven's ResponseON 1 I have long argued we have way too much dubious content there and yes, it all need citing. As to the rest, if RS say X was persecuted by the Nazis for being a christian, yes we could have one or two examples, but I would rather we just discussed it in more general terms. We cannot have a list of Every Christian persecuted by the Nazis, even it is was due to their faith.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000's ResponseThe article covers a period of 2,000 years, and religious persecution is common. Given this, I don’t see adding any individuals, with or without inline cites or even if sources say the person was specifically persecuted for being a Christian. If we look through this lengthy article, names are generally used of persecutors, not those persecuted. Groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Bruderhof make sense for inclusion in the Nazi section as they were persecuted en masse by the Nazis. These are obvious examples of Christian persecution as they were all persecuted. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Jenhawk's responseIt's okay, don't be sorry. It's just the way these things go sometimes.
References
Nightenbelle's Final StatementThen is sounds like we have reached a point where we are all on the same page. While Bonhoeffer does deserve recognition and a page of his on, he does not qualify to be highlighted specifically on this page. Do you guys think you can work on finding the inline sources and inserting them based on talk page discussion or do we need to continue the mediated discussion here for that? It sounds like everyone agrees they need to happen. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Editors' ResponsesJenhawk777We must remove the section that needs sourcing because our definition for inclusion requires persecution directly for faith and the German Christians were not persecuted--for any reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Eighth Statement by Replacement ModeratorI am reopening this case at the request of User:Jenhawk777. The other editors will be notified within a few minutes. Jenhawk777 is requested to make a statement below explaining why they have requested re-opening. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC) The statement by User:Jenhawk777 is limited to 200 words, as are any other statements. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not explain the issues any better than shorter statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Eighth Statements by EditorsExplanation by User:Jenhawk777
statement by User:slaterstevenUnsourced content should be removed, but I am not the only one there. I am not sure I understand the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Ninth Statement by ModeratorJenhawk777: Exactly what is your issue about article content that is why you wanted this dispute reopened? It isn't clear. Please identify one to three changes to the article that you are requesting. Do not say that unsourced content should be removed; say what unsourced content should be removed. Be specific and clear. Both: Should the paragraph about German Christians be removed? Be brief and clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Ninth Statements by EditorsJenhawk777Apparently, what I most objected to has now been removed and slightly rewritten. No one pinged me to let me know, so I just discovered it, but it's now good enough for me to support the content of the first four sentences as they are. I don't know who did it or when, but I thank them. As to referencing, I'd just like to see a little clean up, that's all. These sentences have a pile of 9 references all in a row at their end, that need to be inline citations of those sentences they actually refer to, with the extras removed. It's impossible for anyone to check them as they are. The sentence that begins, "The Third Reich founded its own version of Christianity ..." is an aspect of how the Nazis persecuted the churches, so it's relevant to the topic, and should be kept. However, in order to fully represent what sources say about it, I would like to see a second sentence added--"This is what (sources) say led to the development of the Confessing Church and what Protestant opposition to Nazis there was." This makes no claims concerning persecution, so perhaps we could agree to add that one statement without fighting over it. That's it. The rest has been fixed. Thank you Robert McClenon for doing this. It's amazingly wonderful that you responded as you did. You listened. I'm deeply grateful. I also respect, appreciate and admire Slatersteven's objectivity, reasonableness and commitment to good content (no matter how irritating their opponent is), but I will be sure and tell them that personally. Thank you both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC) SlaterstevenGiven there are 9 sources in that paragraph, no not a blanket removal. But yes much of it needs removing or re-writing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC) I agree how it was sourced was awful. But its just a question of reworking.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Tenth Statement by ModeratorIs there anything else that needs to be mediated? I will close the case if there is nothing else to mediate. If there are any remaining issues, please make a statement of not more than 100 words for each issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Tenth Statements by EditorsJenhawk777Not for me. The German Christians are no longer mentioned. All my original complaints have been addressed. I didn't get to add in what I wanted, but that was consensus, and I said from the start that I was okay either adding balance or removing imbalance, and since removal has happened, I'm good. I assume whoever has been fixing the rest of it will finish inline citations. Thank you again for your willingness to help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven
|
United States
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance and there has been none at the article on United States. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Moreover, even if there had been adequate discussion, no other parties are listed and this request seems to not understand what the purpose of this forum. We mediate disputes between editors, not make edits for them. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview THe editors reviewing this page have used it to smear the ADOS movement instead of objectively tell the movements background. As that the ADOS movement greatly effects the US presidential election in creating the reapartions discussion in the US this is extremely dangerous. The below must be corrected as that when I correct they adjust it back to be biased. The issue with the version posted is it is biased toward the bottom of the opening the prior editor is selectively adding material. In the section they add a blurb about Yvette Carnell in my view too early but keep removing the next blurb about Moore. You can add both or neither but can not have just one to present bias. One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group.The other founder Antonio Moore wrote on liberal think tank Institute for Policy studies site Inequality.org on economics and race for several years. Please add both sentences on the 2 cofounders or omit both the latter is likely proper to omit both that high up as that there is a section lower that it can be added.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Descendants_of_Slavery How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please add both sentences on the 2 cofounders or omit both the latter is likely proper to omit both that high up as that there is a section lower that it can be added. United States discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't know what this has to do with an article on the United States, but Truthsayer21 has said he's one of the founders of ADOS but is not declaring his COI, either here or at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests where he's also complained. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Joey Gibson (political activist)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. When the conduct allegations (which we do not consider) are filtered from the article talk page, only the filing party has commented there. Extensive talk page discussion requires back and forth discussion responding to what one another have said about the content issues in question. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Joey Gibson has according to several sources maintained that his organisation Patriot Prayer is NOT Right Wing. He has spoken AGAINST right wingers on several occasions. Yet the wiki page falsely claims as follows: "Joseph Owan Gibson (born November 8, 1983)[1] is an American political activist and the founder of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, which has organized protests in Portland, Oregon, and other cities." Here is the news article that is referenced : https://www.columbian.com/news/2017/jul/02/joey-gibson-aims-to-liberate-conservatives-via-his-patriot-prayer-group/ "Vancouver’s Joey Gibson always paid some attention to politics but had little practical interest in the process. Then he took to the streets outside the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer. There, the leader of the Patriot Prayer online community-slash-movement, whose organizing and activism has garnered national headlines after recent clashes on college campuses and the streets of Portland, was caught on camera tearing up a demonstrator’s anti-police cardboard sign. “Why would you destroy my property?” asked the man, who was wearing a T-shirt that read “F*** the police.” Because Gibson, 33, was fired up. But then he felt bad for ripping up the sign. He handed the guy a $20 bill, and the interaction ended with a handshake. Now, a year later, Gibson said he is still evolving as an activist and organizer. On Facebook videos and YouTube, he preaches “Hatred is a disease.” He counts the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. among his political heroes. He once invited a transgender person to speak at one of his rallies because he said it’s time all people were accepted." OBVIOUSLY HE IS NOT A RIGHT WINGER AND HIS ORGANISATION IS NOT "FAR RIGHT" This is an obvious attempt at smearing a man whose hero is Martin Luther King, Jr.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Let everyone know this: Biographies of living persons 1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." DO NO HARM. Summary of dispute by AzureCitizenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by K.e.coffmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Joey Gibson (political activist) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
hello, i am willing to moderate this dispute, any objections? also as this dispute is of a political nature please dont insult each other or propagandize. wikipedia is not a soap box. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Petfinder
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has also filed a case at WP:ANI. That is probably just as well, both so that we don't have to try to deal with this, and because WP:ANI often does an effective job with boomerangs. Closed here because this noticeboard does not handle cases that are pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 25 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 I have tried multiple times to add objective, verifiable facts to this page and every time I do, the same person comes and removes it and provides inaccurate reasons, while being incredibly rude and unprofessional. Nevertheless, every time he does so, I go back and try to revise my post to satisfy him but no matter what I do, the post keeps getting removed. Instead of acknowledging and leaving the facts on the page, the person is now splitting hairs and picking out single words that he doesn't like, instead of leaving the facts where they are on the page. I've asked several times how to add evidence if he is so upset by the citations I've made, but I get no response. I have also cited verifiable sources and these keep getting rejected too. The explanations make no sense whatsoever and seem to be simply having fun harassing and bullying me. Please make that stop. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TruthInAdverts#August_2020 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assign an editor who isn't doing this just for fun and to push the public around. I'd like to be treated with respect and get HELP to make a post proper if you feel it isn't, but I seek DIALOGUE, not bullying, as well as a FAIR resolution. Calton has made it very clear that no matter why I type, he will come up with a reason to delete it. Please provide dispute handlers not associated with him as I can envision him getting his friends to help bully me. Summary of dispute by CaltonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Petfinder discussion
|
Twenty-two or 22?
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature, not enough discussion and improper resolution technique. Please move to article talk page. HeartGlow (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Summary of dispute by Call me when you get the chancePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TomCat4680Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm following MOS:NUMNOTES but he either wasn't aware of this rule or is simply refusing to follow it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Twenty-two or 22? discussion
There is a dispute on Portal:Current events/2020 September 7 over whether numerals should or shouldn't start a sentence. This one user User:TomCat4680 is edit warring with me over the issue and this needs to be brought to your attention. Call me when you get the chance 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Eugene Scalia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor isn't trying to discuss anything, but simply making some sort of demand, although, because there hasn't been any discussion, it is hard to figure out what the filing editor is demanding. A demand for administrative action can be made at WP:ANI, but caution is advised when throwing a boomerang at an emu that isn't there. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I filed a previous dispute regarding removing a sentence on the 'Eugene Scalia' that violated the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. An independent moderator named 'Deb' reviewed the article and agreed that the sentence as written needed to be removed. She did so. Afterwards, the user named Evrik, put the sentence back. I have provided a very lengthy explanation in the Talk section why the sentence violated Wikipedia policy. I just removed the sentence again. I request that you enforce your own Wikipedia policy and your own ruling on the sentence. If there are ways to prevent Evrik from adding back the offending sentence, I request you do so. Otherwise, can you inform him in the talk section that adding the sentence back is not acceptable and I intend to file a dispute against a user if he does it again. I would prefer not to do that, but bullying against Wikipedia policy should not be allowed. I am grateful for your time. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugene_Scalia 'Deb' already ruled the sentence as written violated the Wikipedia policy and should be removed. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please clarify to Evrik that he may not re-add the sentence that was removed. If there are ways in the code to block him form being able to do so again, I request that you do that. If there are further consequences that are possible, I request that they be considered or at least that he is warned in the talk section of any consequences. Summary of dispute by EvrikPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eugene Scalia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
My page: Isla Blair. UK
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is not the right place for this discussion. Although, I did check and the photo in question does seem to have been removed. In the future- please make requests on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The photo of me on my Isla Blair page is NOT me but an actress called Sophie Louise Dann. I'd be grateful if it could be taken down and replaced by a photo of me! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I don't know who to contact about the wrong photo being put up as me. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Put up a photo of me, Isla Blair, and not of Sophie Louise Dann! Summary of dispute by Photo pagePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My page: Isla Blair. UK discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
José Luis Martínez-Almeida
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is not the right forum for this request. I would suggest WP:3o or WP:RFC. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I put additional information that was not relevant (that he was not married) and some information that didn't meet exactly with the source cited, I also write a sentence that [user:Asqueladd] saw as biased, I corrected it whan he showed his concerns on the sentence in the talk and added a non-neutrality template, but when I asked him if we could remove the template, once I had corrected the sentence, he added an advert template on top of the previous one. I looked for assistance with some luck and I found [user:Praxidicae] that pointed out for me the other problems (sentimental situation of the individual and a bad writing in other section). I rewrited all the things so the template can be removed, but I do not know if Asqueladd would have more concerns. Can you, dear volunteer, take a look and tell me if it is okay now and the template can be removed? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:José Luis Martínez-Almeida How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Pointing out if there are more problems in the writing that can be perceived as biased and, if there aren't or they are corrected, saying so in the talk page so Asqueladd can see everything is OK and this is not a group of friends trying to promote the subject. Summary of dispute by AsqueladdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PraxidicaePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
José Luis Martínez-Almeida discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Wikipedia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This is not the correct location for this dispute. First discuss it on the talk page, and then you may ask for a WP:3o or WP:RFC but the DRN does not make determinations of content, we just moderate discussions of editors who cannot find a compromise alone. Also, you may want to review WP:OR and work on making sure you are providing WP:RS to support the change you would like. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear Dispute Resolution Board Members, To the right side of the article on Patanjali in Wikipedia there is a summary description box attached with the Heading "Hindu Philosophy". Sir, this is incorrect. I suggest it be renamed as "Indian" Philosophy which encompasses the 3 main non-revealed religions of the world that originated from India or Bharat - namely, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. To name them all under the category "Hindu Philosophy" is totally wrong. All three mentioned have derived their thinking and discussions from Vedic and Upanishadic texts and brought out individual contributions like "Bhagavad Gita" (Hinduism), Buddhist Sutras (originating from Buddha) and Jaina scrpiptures (sourced to Mahavira). The reason why this is important is that the current Indian government and its supporting party BJP want to project the image of India solely as a "Hindu Nation". India houses all the 3 religions mentioned above as much as the philosophies they represent. Indian philosophy encompasses all and is more than just Hindu scriptures and thought. George Chakko, former U.N.correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria. I hold a Master's degree each in both Indian and Western Philosophies (University of Madras and University of Bonn, Germany. In India I studied Indian Philosophy under late Professor and Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in Philosophy, Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, a renowned Shankara and Vedanta scholar, under University of Madras in Chennai, India. Vienna, 09/09/2020 09:52 am CSET email: gchakko@gmail.com How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? My email: gchakko@gmail.com Tel: 0043-1-9165167 (Landline) Mob: 0677-616-30657 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Just change the heading from Hindu Philosophy to Indian Philosophy, that' all. Thank you George Chakko Summary of dispute by The author or authors of the article on PatanjaliPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Wikipedia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@77.118.253.10: Where is the dispute? I see nothing on the Talk page that merits this approach? Deb (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Arameans
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. I am closing this as forum shopping, as a conduct dispute, and as unlikely to be solved here. The RFC is still open. It hasn't been formally (or even informally) closed. If the filing editor thinks that the RFC has failed due to the sockpuppetry, they can ask to have it closed first. Otherwise it might be closed afterward with a different conclusion than a discussion here. Anyway, if the issue has been unending since 2014, moderated discussion with two other editors is not likely to resolve it. Also, the filing party said, in one of their recent edit summaries, that they were reverting vandalism. This noticeboard doesn't deal with vandalism, and it doesn't normally deal with disputes that someone has muddied by yelling vandalism in order to "win" a dispute. If this really is a content dispute, it needs an RFC to resolve it. If this really is a conduct dispute, whether due to edit-warring, sockpuppetry, or vandalism, it needs administrative attention. The conduct allegations have muddied the dispute to where the next step is almost certainly WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 28 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 The underlying issue is the identity debate within this particular ethnic group. The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the accepted term of self-identification within this ethnicity. This group is currently divided between those who still hold to the identity "Assyrian", whilst others have now adopted "Aramean", amongst others. Organisations in favour of the identity label "Aramean" use the term to apply to the entirety of the ethnic group, as opposed to "Assyrian", and do not argue that they have separated from those who identify as "Assyrian", and vice versa. As "Assyrian" is accepted as the catchall name for this ethnicity in academia, due to its former status as the sole label, there are frequent POV edits to Arameans in relation to the modern people that identify with this label. Much of these users argue that "Aramean" and "Assyrian" are ethnically separate from each other, typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers, providing no evidence at all, or providing unreliable evidence. This is an unending issue that has existed without resolution for over a decade, of which I have dealt with constantly since I joined in 2014. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The dispute has been extensively discussed recently at Talk:Arameans#Modern identity Talk:Arameans#RfC about the modern Aramean identity Talk:Arameans#Arameans are Assyrians How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think there needs to be a permanent statement that the article Arameans is purely for the ancient people, and the modern people that identity as "Aramean" should be treated alongside "Assyrian" at Assyrian people, in line with the academic consensus that they are in fact the same ethnic group. There could be possibly be a permanent ban on IP users editing the page, as they are typically the propagators of the belief that they are ethnically separate from one another. Summary of dispute by H0llandePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Optra2021On the Aramean talk page, user Mugsalot quote: "In the last fifty years, West‐Syriac Christians have continued to PROMOTE Assyrian identity as a means of uniting all Syriac Christians, regardless of religious affiliation, within a single nation...MANY Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have RESISTED the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology..."" Now Mugsalot contradicts himself by saying "The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the ACCEPTED term of self-identification WITHIN this ethnicity."" Wasn't it resisted??? "Assyrian" has neither been the commonly used term in academia nor is it accepted by most scholars or within these peoples! It is commonly used in English media, because most people who identify as "Assyrians" emigrated to English-speaking countries. I am not sure why Mugsalot is trying to fool everyone here again. He uses endless low-quality sources/references even written by Assyrian nationalists to justify his biased behavior. I invite everyone to read through the talk pages archives on Assyrian people and Arameans to see how high-quality Aramean related academic sources have been vandalized, removed, falsified or never made it to Wikipedia just to fit the narrative of Assyrian POV editing! To make it clear to outsiders what is going on with the endless edit wars: For the last 2,000 years, these various groups of people commonly referred themselves as Suryoye/Suraye (literally "Syrians" in English) in their various Aramaic languages/dialects. The last 100 years some groups started to form national-political movements labeled as "Assyrians" with an identity and ideology based on scholar, e. g. A, B,... . Most Suryoye/Suraye rejected this, leading the formation of their own national-political movement, namely the Arameans based on scholar, e. g. C, D,..., their pre-nationalistic tradition, folklore, culture and literature in the words of their own forefathers in their native tongue that they are descendants of the ancient Arameans. Ancient Assyrians and Arameans used to be two distinct ethnicities. Since scholars, e. g. C and D do not fit Assyrian nationalistic views (Evident in Mugsalot's above comment: "...typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers..."), sources are invalid in the eyes of him and his companions, therefore they have to be removed or vandalized, thus hurting the mission of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources and Information then creating the corresponding articles, no matter if it is pro-contra Assyrian, Aramean whatever. The current Assyrian people article is clearly POV edited by mixing ancient Assyrians, which is also very controversial in academia that these modern groups are descendents of them or political Assyrian ideologies that are not supported by other scholars or even within the group itself. Pro-Assyrian nationalistic writers such as Mugsalot and Co are referring to WIKICOMMONNAME, but forget that it would only apply, if the overall content is the SAME, which is not the case! Now Mugsalot is heavily destroying English Wikipedias credibility by calling the Arameans an "Assyrian" subgroup, deciding who is who based on his OWN assumptions! Todays Arameans are their own ethnic group, identity, flag, history, organisations, e. g. World Council of Arameans who represents the Aramean nation, including the Assyrians to the United Nations (UN). Arameans are recognised as an ethnicity by the state of Israel. A small "subgroup" wouldn't be able to built such a strong network worldwide. From Mugsalot's text above, it is obvious, he is not interested in finding a solution other than keeping the Assyrian POV. My suggestion to solve this problem, we should take a look at German Wikipedia and it works perfectly there: Assyrians and Arameans articles about the ancient, pre-Christian people only. Assyrians (present) and Aramean (present) about the present people only, similar to how we have Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrians, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) articles on English Wikipedia. The case between those South-Slavic groups is very similar to that between present Assyrians and Arameans. Serbians claim Bosnians to be Serbians, while Bosnians reject this and claim Serbians to be Bosnians though they speak mutual intelligible languages. Mugsalot already quoted from a source there was no unified "Assyrian" nation to begin with, therefore "Assyrian" is neither the generic term to describe these people as a whole nor are the Arameans a subgroup of anyone. Even within the Bosnians, we have Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats articles. Mugsalot and other Assyrian nationalists are trying to force Arameans and other Syriac groups under the highly disputive "Assyrian" term to be the generic term for these various Aramaic-speaking and Syriac Christian groups, which is not supported by a lot of other academic sources/studies. This would be like if some Italians join Spanish nationalism and forcing other Italians to be Spaniards as well. Ironically, the so called "dialects" Turoyo Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Arameans/Syriacs and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Assyrians are mutual unintelligible. Therefore it should be reflected by creating independent articles to keep Wikipedia neutral and prevent Assyrian POVs. Syriac Christians or Suryoye/Suraye about the Christian period The Historian Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. He says: "The people we Greek call Syrians, they call themselves Arameans" From: See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_15 --Optra2021 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Arameans discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
hello i am willing to volunteer to moderate this dispute. any objections? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
|
CopperheadOS
– 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
- Yae4 (talk · contribs)
- Anupritaisno1 (talk · contribs)
- Pitchcurve (talk · contribs)
- Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs)
- Taybella (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
CopperheadOS has a disagreement over, in essence, the spelling of the "developer" name being used in the Operating System Infobox. It has been discussed on the Talk:CopperheadOS#Removal_of_source_for_the_company_name Talk page. I carelessly broke the 3RR (by a couple hours). Apologies. The editor name, Anupritaisno1, most recently changing back to 3-p's has not participated in the Talk on this issue.
One side wants the name spelled "Coppperhead" with 3-p's, based only on a lookup at this search link. Comments:
- The operating system is not mentioned at this search result; the connection is inference.
- The above search result says "Beta: This is a new service — your feedback will help us improve it." indicating it could be faulty (aka unreliable).
- The above search result says "For the complete profile, go to the official registry source: ServiceOntario" with a link. My search at ServiceOntario gives "0 results for Coppperhead" (3-p's). A search for Copperhead (2-p's) gave several results but none for the OS company (or I missed it).
The other side wants the name spelled "Copperhead" with 2-p's, based on CopperheadOS website - copperhead.co (trademark statement at bottom), every mention of the company name in all other sources used in the article, and trademark lookup sites.
Side Note, related issue: An editor would also like to add a statement to the article saying the company was incorporated in November 2015, based only on the same beta registry lookup site.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Article Talk page only (and I was warned about 3RR on my user Talk).
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Uninvolved eyes and opinions, previous experience with similar issue.
Summary of dispute by Anupritaisno1
Summary of dispute by Pitchcurve
The current incarnation of CopperheadOS is officially developed by a company commonly known as Copperhead. The original OS was developed by an open source development team before the company was incorporated. The open source project and the company split down different paths into the current proprietary CopperheadOS and the open source GrapheneOS. Referring to the developer as simply being the company is incomplete and misleading in the first place. The infobox should likely be changed to distinguish between the original and current developers. The history section can go into detail about it. The continuation of the product by the company and the open source project by the original development team both claim to be the true successors to the project. High quality articles like the golem.de piece present it as open to interpretation. There are a bunch of unreliable sources being used that are simply paraphrasing press releases and social media posts without properly distinguishing between verified facts and the claims from either party. These are primarily based on the company's press releases and statements, and combined with questionable editing of the Wikipedia article (not by anyone involved here) previously led to a very inaccurate article presenting a corporate narrative. The subject matter is not notable enough to have much proper media coverage which makes the many controversies and the active dispute with the open source project quite problematic for the Wikipedia article.
Multiple articles used as sources including the Ars Technica article discuss that the company was founded in Toronto, Ontario to commercialize the open source project. The official addresses associated with the company (it changed) can be used to uniquely identify it and distinguish from any similarly named companies. The date and location it was founded also work. Citing the company itself for the date it was founded would give the same date, but simply isn't necessary when there's a neutral and authoritative source available. The sole use case for the databases offered by Service Ontario and commercial services like Opstart is to obtain an accurate date and legal name for the company. They aren't being used to confirm the connection of the company to the OS. Some articles about the OS were written before the company was founded and others were written afterwards. These articles do not generally try to give specific dates / timelines, so it's nice to have an authoritative source to cite for a precise date. For this article, this is important because otherwise there's going to be a fight about whether the open source project or company existed first. Using an authoritative source for this information was my attempt to put that part of the conflict to rest.
While doing this research, I noticed that the legal company name did not match the one given by the article, and that there had been a previous scuffle about it earlier. I think the article should use the official legal name of the company, particularly since those kinds of information databases cannot be searched without the correct name. It does not make sense to refer to it by the quirky official name in the body of the article where the common name Copperhead is a much better fit. "Copperhead Limited" is an attempt to reference the official legal name of the company but it's incorrect. Contact Service Ontario yourself and you can verify this.
https://beta.canadasbusinessregistries.ca/search/results?search=%7BCoppperhead%7D&status=Active is simply an easy way to refer to the Service Ontario database for people who aren't going to go through the hassle of contacting them or using a commercial service to obtain information on the company as I did.
Summary of dispute by Mr. Stradivarius
I first came to this article in an administrative capacity, but now on this particular issue I probably count as WP:INVOLVED. The crux of the dispute is whether to use "Copperhead Limited" as the developer name, as used on the company website[9] and in its trademark listings,[10][11] or whether to use Coppperhead Limited (with three P's) as listed in Canada's Business Registries. The 3-P name is allegedly a mistake made by the Copperhead founder when registering the business. Aside from the business registry, I am not aware of any third-party reliable sources that cover the alleged naming mistake. The dispute is complicated by a real-world dispute between the Copperhead CTO and the CEO; the CTO left the company, later founding the rival GrapheneOS. The real-world dispute, and social media activity related to it, is likely the reason that this article has recently seen an influx of new editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Taybella
CopperheadOS discussion
List of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed because 1 comment on the talk page that was made yesterday does not constitute a discussion- you need to make a good faith effort to solve the problem yourself on the talk page- not in edit summaries. Now- I will say that User:Trivialist is correct- Youtube is not a WP:RS however- from a quick google search, I found SEVERAL other sources that list that episode in season 5, so with a little more looking- you should have no problem finding a RS to use to support your change. If you are still having an issue after that, try a longer discussion on the article talk page, WP:3o or WP:rfc and if none of those works, please open another case here. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There seems to be a minor disagreement on rather the episode Joshua is part of season 4 or 5. I have posted sources and Youtube links that show it is part of season 4, but each time I do User:Trivialist claims I am wrong and anything I post is just random links How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes Tried to tell user to see talk page in hopes of him talking it out with me but he refuses. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Have others join in on the discussion or have a vote on the subject Summary of dispute by TrivialistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D160:45D8:B8CB:7A7I noticed Joshua was listed as part of Season 5. The episode has the same opening as all other season 4 episodes the only difference is that it has a 1998 copyright date at the end that is the only thing that makes it different. so I tried to change it but Trivialist decided he wanted to engage in edit warring I tried to tell him to please come to the talk page so it doesnt look like he is fighting just out of bordom or to start trouble. but he refused. I think more people should help and discuss this. Not just me and him. List of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Khichdi
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. There appears to have been no discussion on the article talk page for several years. The filing editor states that there has been a discussion on a web chat. While discussion on a web chat is permitted, it does not satisfy the requirement for discussion on an article talk page. Discussion must be on the article talk page because other editors may be following the talk page, and so that editors can refer back to the discussion. Discuss this, and any other content issues about the article, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 29 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 in the old page it was writen that an egyptian and english dish was inspired by the indian dish a user have edited this article and said that the egyptian dish is not inspired by this dish i have reverted him several times and provides 5 links to prove the orginal text but he also and anther user have reverted my info i am asking how to solve that dispute How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? if each one of the three of us can provide sufficient proves and links that ensure his information and i am sure that the other users dont have any proves or evidence about their info Summary of dispute by JulietdeltalimaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MaterialscientistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Khichdi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as fizzled out. There have been no comments in the past week. Any further discussion can be on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User:Tvx1 restores incorrect info to the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. Official final standings in all first and third-party sources clearly represents only one final total for each constructor without any bracketed extra. Points that McLaren scored overall after the finish of Italian Grand Prix are irrelevant to the finite standings and is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION in the context of such table. I have asked many times to provide any sources for this info, but have not received any, so I will provide the sources which I have: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2007/team.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121031021811/http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Season_Guide/2007.html https://results.motorsportstats.com/series/formula-one/season/2007 https://www.skysports.com/f1/stats/2007/teams https://www.racefans.net/2007/10/21/2007-championship-final-standings/ https://www.f1mix.com/results/2007-formula-1-world-championship.asp As you see none of them have number 166 in the season standings. P.S. I have proposed a compromise with putting this amount to the note, but this proposal was ignored by the opposing side. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do believe that you can give neutral interpretation of the policies on that matter, which will resolve this issue. Summary of dispute by Tvx1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I really don't understand why this was escalated to dispute resolution. And I certainly don't understand why I'm being singled out. This certainly does not only deal with the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. There was a general discussion on a how best to deal with the results of competitors who have been penalized by the deduction of a part or even all of the points they had been awarded during the course of a season. I felt it was a constructive discussion with a general positive atmosphere and thus certainly not a dispute. Unfortunately there a clear consensus on one rule on how to deal in the exact same manner with every potential situation did not appear to emerge. Corvus tristis made one edit to the aforementioned article based on a consensus they perceived had emerged an which added some incorrect facts (adding point totals McLaren had never been credited with to footnote). Upon review of the WT:F1 discussion a did not detect that consensus (certainly not for mentioning the aforementioned totals in any way) and thus decided to revert. I feel that filing this for is an overreaction. I also don't understand the accusations of policies being broken. The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources and care has been taken that our readers are clearly explained that the points between bracket do not count officially.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BretonbanquetNot sure why this has ended up here, but my input to the discussion was simply that I believe these "points in brackets", i.e. deducted points, points removed from a team's total, "ghost points" if you will, do not belong in a statistical table. They can be explained in text, as they are important. But they no longer exist, and do not exist in source material from which we draw information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 5225CI participated in the discussion at WT:F1, but at the time this was discussing Racing Point in the 2020 season, and I used the 2007 article as an example. Summary of dispute by DB1729Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My only involvement was this comment, which was solely in regards to Racing Point's 2020 parenthetical points. I have no strong opinion on the related, but separate McLaren 2007 issue. --DB1729 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FalcadoreMy understanding of the dispute is that User:5225C was defending the usage of 0 (166) to display in 2007 that the McLaren team scored 0 points after being excluded from the World Championship point score but had they not been excluded would have scored 166 points. McLaren however were excluded. What they might have scored is speculation. They did not score those points. Indeed the language is that they were excluded. Not penalised, but removed. Wikipedia via WP:Speculation does not encourage speculation as Wikipedia records what was, not what might have been. The same applies to Racing Point in 2020. They have been been penalised 15 points, so the total points tabulated includes that penalty. As of the time in the timestamp of this post they scored 66 points. Not 81 points not 66 (81) points. There is a bracketted use of a secondary points number but that refers to dropped points due to the scoring mechanism, not due to penalties applied. Regards; --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tesla, Inc.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as resolved. The editors agree that everyone is willing to have the infobox state "In Dispute", with a full explanation in the body of the article (and providing an encyclopedic explanation is what an encyclopedia is for). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 10 September 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 There is disagreement as to whether Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel and Ian Wright should be listed as founders in the Tesla, Inc. infobox. As the footnote in the infobox notes, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original founders of Tesla; Musk, Straubel, and Wright only negotiated to call themselves co-founders after-the-fact, in a lawsuit settlement in 2009. As shown on the talk page discussion, reliable sources consistently and clearly name only Eberhard and Tarpenning as the sole co-founders of Tesla. I believe the infobox should reflect the determination made by these reliable sources, and only list Eberhard and Tarpenning as founders. Editors opposed to this change argue that the lawsuit settlement means the true founders of the company is now a "disputed" fact, which should be recognized by including Musk, Straubel, and Wright as founders as well. This feels to me like allowing the involved parties to re-write history, because the verifiable facts show that the true founders were only Eberhard and Tarpenning. The additional context of the lawsuit and settlement allowing Musk, Straubel, and Wright to call themselves co-founders is better suited for the article's main text, not the infobox. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you can provide input on whether the lawsuit settlement makes the founders of Tesla a "disputed" fact that warrants mention in the infobox, or if reliable sources clearly show the verified facts to be that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole co-founders of the company. Summary of dispute by QRep2020Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There are two participants who reject the current Founder configuration in the Infobox, two who affirm it, and two who argue that the field should not be used in the specific article at all; two of these participants came to the discussion via a request for outside comment. Clearly there is a disagreement that needs resolution. My case for rejection is that the Infobox is not an appropriate place for including contingent labels that were "agreed upon" after the fact. The Founders field should consist of only relevant verified historical (abbreviated) statements as that is how any particular standard field of any type of Infobox consistently presents in Wikipedia articles across all categories. If there was a standard field in Infobox (company) template designated Retroactive Founders then that is where Musk, Straubel, etc. would be listed, but there is not. Placing the three retroactive founders' names in the Founders field with a footnote attached to them does not grant some sort of exception especially since the article itself already explains how Eberhard and Tarpenning created the company, coined its name, etc. as well as what happened in the subsequent lawsuit and agreement. Edit: Italicized text supplants earlier text. QRep2020 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Stepho-wrsThe editors who think that it should only be 2 founders have equated founding with those who signed the incorporation papers. But there is no legal definition of founder and even WP says at Startup_company#Founders/entrepreneurs that "The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company." Article currently lists 5 founders, with a footnote on the 3 disputed names with details and reference - ie very compact but lets the interested reader know. Stepho talk 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MartinezMDI don't see a problem keeping the list of founders as all 5 of the men in question. The three founders in question have proper footnotes explaining that they came later but that a negotiation led to the 5 being listed as such. Who are we trying to please here by saying otherwise? MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by A7V2The discussion seemed to go a lot into a specific definition of what a founder is, but I feel this is not relevant and instead Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, which as per my own comments I feel are just the two founders. That said, I agree with IPBilly's point that the infobox should only provide a summary, and contain as little information as necessary. So I feel that under the circumstances of it being disputed, the infobox category should either be left blank or have something like "disputed" so that it can be discussed in the article. Given that only one user (not including myself just now) has responded to this idea (which hadn't been raised by anyone else), I'm not sure what the point of this discussion here is? The discussion on the talk page is only a week old and IPBilly's comment just two days old. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by IPBillyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The disagreement appears to be centered around the criteria for inclusion in the Infobox:founders category; the individuals responsible for originally incorporating the organization or persons whom carry the title "founder". Side A would like to change the infobox to list only the two "original" founders; including the 3 others would be rewriting history because they gained the title only after a court settlement. Side B would like to list all 5 founders because those 5 individuals all have the title "founder". Both sides have produced verifiable sources that support their position. I proposed splitting the baby and removing the category from the infobox entirely because either listing of 2 or 5 founders does not "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Given that there seems to be no disagreement 3/5 founders were added post-hoc, the key fact is that the "true" founders are disputed/honorary. IPBilly (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Tesla, Inc. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Any reason we can't have the first two and then add the other three as added in the 2009 lawsuit in parentheses? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Without arguing for either side, I’d like to point out that according to WP:INFOBOXREF, inline references should only be included in an infobox when the material both (1) requires a reference and (2) does not appear in the body of the article. If we don’t break this rule, then the only acceptable resolutions here seem to be either (A) including all five in the infobox with no inline reference or (B) including only the two original founders in the infobox. The current state of the infobox (C) includes all five with the latter three having an inline reference, whose content is then repeated in the main body of the article. (Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.) If we apply WP:INFOBOXREF strictly, then only (A) or (B) can be a real resolution here. However, we shouldn’t just always blindly follow rules. This may end up being a case where WP:INFOBOXREF shouldn’t apply, so (C) might be appropriate. Now that I’ve pointed out the relevant infobox reference guidelines, I will say that if the choices are only between (A) and (B), we should prefer (B) over (A), because (A) seems misleading and would confuse people who later read In the main body of the article that three of the founders are disputed. For this reason alone, I believe we should all prefer (B) over (A), even if you genuinely believe that all five should otherwise be listed in the infobox. However, choosing between (B) and (C) is much more difficult and is the main dispute at issue here. To those who believe that (C) is more appropriate than (B), I will point out that you may be tempted to prefer (B) solely because WP:INFOBOXREF strongly and directly disincentivizes (C). Does this reframing of the dispute in the context of WP:INFOBOXREF help others to reevaluate their position? If you originally preferred (C) over (B), does knowing this context make you any more favorable toward (B)? Or do you instead feel that (C) should be preferred over (B) despite WP:INFOBOXREF? — Eric Herboso 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorSince the participants have been doing well but have said that a moderator will help, I will provide this statement. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. These rules seem to have been followed, which is good. The main issue appears to be the infobox. The editors have agreed that there are four options about the Founders field in the infobox.
So are there any other options on the infobox? Also, are there any other issues requiring dispute resolution? If there are no other options, then we need to decide whether we will resolve the infobox question by a consensus here at DRN, or use an RFC. If in doubt, we should use an RFC. If we are using an RFC, the important consideration is to be sure that it is clear and properly worded. Each editor should provide a brief statement in the section below. If you comment on another editor's statement, indent your own comments at least two spaces. If you reply to a comment, indent your reply at least two more spaces. Make your own statement also. However, it is probably better at this time only to make your own statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors after moderation startedThere is also the option that came up in the above part where we have no names listed and instead put 'Disputed' in the field, perhaps as a Wikilink to the appropriate subsection that discusses the matter at length. For the reasons I supplied above and elsewhere, I am opposed to A and C (with prejudice for A), my vote is for B, but I will support D or E (assuming E is the 'Disputed' option). QRep2020 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with including an option E where the infobox would say something to the effect of "Disputed, see [Link to founders section in main text]". It seems pretty clear that any option that involves listing the two or five founders (option A, B, or C) wouldn't accurately convey the full story — though personally I still believe that option B is the most accurate and truthful, as it aligns with the vast majority of reliable sources. As for deciding to do a RfC instead of resolving the dispute here, what would be the reasoning for that? We've received input from everyone who's been involved in the talk page discussion, so in my mind it seems easier to reach an agreement here rather than changing forums again. But I'm not very familiar with this process, so if others think a RfC would be better I'm perfectly fine with that too. Stonkaments (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that there are two options missing, E as outlined by those above (having "disputed" or "Under dispute, see main text" or similar) as well as having just the 2 names but a note pointing out the dispute (which I'll call option F). My preference would definitely be for option E, followed by F, then C, then D. I agree with the others that leaving D blank could result in it being constantly filled in all of the time, but I definitely don't like the idea of options A or B as there clearly is a "dispute" (for lack of a better word) between the majority (but not all) reliable sources and the company itself, and having just 2 or just 5 with no note is misleading if one doesn't read the whole article. A7V2 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by ModeratorIt appears that all of the participants agree that they will accept having Founder in the Infobox say: "Disputed, see main text". Is there agreement that we can compromise on Disputed? Are there any other issues, or do we closed as Resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by EditorsI think my preference would be to list all 5, with a clear designation of their disputed status, possibly using superscript to limit clutter. The only reason for this is that it may be difficult to quickly parse the names of the founders (disputed or not) from the text describing the whole situation. This is a low value concern, however, and a simple "disputed" would suffice. IPBilly (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
|
China–United States trade war
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | fizzled out. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Flaughtin on 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute concerns an impasse in the resolution of competing versions of a section in the above article (entitled Backgrounds) between myself and Mx. Granger (This is my version of the material while this is the opposing editor's version. Prior attempts to get the opposing user to respond to my objections ([12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]) were met with either non-responses which (deliberately or otherwise) doesn't address content issues ([17]) or a game-the-system response in which the opposing user attempts to shift the status quo by misrepresenting my position, ramming through his/her preferred changes to the main article on the basis of that misrepresentation and then addressing the extant objections that I had to his/her previous arguments. ([18]) Contributors will note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove. Contributors will also note that the two series of edit which introduced much of the deleted material (series 1 - [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] and series 2 - [33], [34], [35], [36]) stood for a year (one year because this edit marked the introduction of the subsection that documents the relationship between China and the WTO) - for the entire time throughout the opposing editor was continuously active on the main article and did not once modify the content contained in the two series of edits until now. On a procedural note, can I can inform the author of those two series of edits of this dispute even though he/she was not a direct participant to the previous debate on the talk page? I think that that editor should be made aware of the dispute that's going on here given the drastic changes that are being proposed to it. Flaughtin (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 4#Problem section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Reset the section of the article in question to the original state ([37]) until the outstanding issues as explicated on the talk page can be resolved first. Summary of dispute by Mx. GrangerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The disagreement is about how much information the background section should contain, and how to write that section in a way that gives due weight. The solution with the most support is to generally limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war. The other three users in the discussion (including me) agree with this solution, but Flaughtin objects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ReconditeRodentPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thucydides411There are two problems with the Background section:
The Background section should be dramatically reduced in length, and should focus much more on the immediate causes of the trade war. It can briefly discuss China's entry into the WTO, but the main emphasis should be on the trade imbalance, the view that the US trade deficit with China is a problem, the mainstream economic view of the trade imbalance, and Trump's 2016 campaign promises. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Light showPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
If the dispute concerns what Granger stated, that it should "limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war," then I would disagree. Note the current footnote #39 from the Washington Post explains why background is necessary to help readers understand the trade war: "There was a belief that China would develop a private economy that would prove compatible with the WTO system. Chinese leadership has made a political decision to do the opposite. So now we have to respond." By deleting the entire section, the article is disconnected from it's causes. The section should naturally be restored. Some articles that I've edited all have detailed background sections: COVID-19 pandemic, Opioid epidemic in the United States, Thorium-based nuclear power. Without those, the articles would have been seriously defective. As for how much background material is necessary, that would be a more relevant question, so I agree with Granger on that. But as for writing the section in a way that gives due weight, it seems that was properly done. The sources included opinions by Chinese leaders when they gave them publicly. If anything, our press, not being very pro-Trump, has given extra weight to China's opinions, along with complaints by various experts in the U.S. and Europe that the trade conflict was harming certain industries. One important issue is that deleting thousands of words at one time, ie. diff-1 and diff-2, covering many sections, makes reviewing and editing nearly impossible. The guidelines require that edits, whether adding or deleting, be done in segments, so that other editors can review them. One of the reasons I didn't join the earlier discussions was because debates about 26 subjects at a time was a barrier. It only makes sense, IMO, to restore most of the section on background. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC) China–United States trade war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
hello. i will volunteer to moderate this dispute, do you have any objections. also notify other participants on their talk pages Clone commando sev (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Light show Well said. I entirely agree with your position to restore most of the section on background. And I also entirely agree with your observation about that editor's problematic habit of removing reams of material (which that editor doesn't like) across multiple sections in one go. Just because the material in the section doesn't literally mention the current US-China trade war (how can it if it's background information?) doesn't mean it's not linked (directly or otherwise) to the trade war. While we can remove material from the background section (or more accurately migrate the material to the China and the World Trade Organization article), we do not of course mean removing nearly all of the material from the section, as is the case in the extant version of the background section. Determining what material should stay and what material should go is precisely the issue at hand, and as I said in my opening remarks, you'll note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove...which is why we are here. Clone commando sev - do you have any comments on Light Show's above remarks? Flaughtin (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Joy (singer)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. No acceptance by responding party. If dispute resolution is still needed, consider a request for comments. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I corrected recent edits by user Raolae that unnecessarily deleted citations, removed information according to their personal views without evidence or reason, and made numerous grammatical and factual errors on the Joy (singer) page. User Raolae reverted my revisions 3 times in less than 24 hours. I then engaged with them in a civil and thorough discussion on the talk page in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I provided detailed explanations for my edits, citations, and objective facts. Each time the user has refused to acknowledge the stated facts (including even basic grammar corrections) and ignored any attempt at compromise. The talk page discussion outlines many of the edits I believe need to be rectified. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can provide an objective and educated perspective. Summary of dispute by RaolaePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Joy (singer) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
United Kingdom
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Not a request for dispute resolution, and contains a legal threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 4 September 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 only truth is that I have been referred to as an eco-colonialist by the Brazilian government to further their political purposes of deflecting their poor track record of protecting the Amazonas rainforest. However, this is an entirely false statement. Buying land in a foreign country to preserve rainforest is not colonialism. With regards to Green Grabbing - Eco-Colonialism and Green Grabbing are two defined terms with different meaning. Vidal’s article does not suggest that I am a Green Grabber; it only refers to the aforementioned statement by the Brazilian government. Therefore to refer to Johan Eliasch in relation to Green Grabbing is not only deliberately misleading but also libellous and defamatory. I believe I have now explained this very clearly, and please understand that there are implications of libel and defamation, so please be so kind to remove the reference to myself and Cool Earth under Green Grabbing without further delay. Firstly, the Guardian Article does not state that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber", so Wikipedia is inferring that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber". Secondly, the entire topic is essentially based on a single newspaper article which did not gain any traction. That is not responsible reporting. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia but it also has to be verifiable and accurate. Why doesn't Wikipedia write about the other individuals mentioned in the article? Why doesn't Wikipedia go to the Cool Earth Website? If Wikipedia copied the Guardian article in good faith, it would mention every individual mentioned in the article. The topic has been reported in malicious faith and without foundation. Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:37.71.1.37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_grabbing How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By removing the malicious accusations Summary of dispute by TimtrentPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TsventonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United Kingdom discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|